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: 6439
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Jun 2020, 21:20

lipovitand wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
all jokes aside, I have been seriously wanting to add to some of the Gripen threads as much comprehensive, accurate, vetted, and rare, hard to find NOT COMPANY PROPAGANDA on the Gripen here on F-16.net. To try and get to the truth.

Gripen is a sexy airplane, what bothers me is the lies, hype and rabid fans that surround it and make anything approaching reason impossible.



Lets start shall we?



viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53203&start=225

We can either use this one (probably preferred as the Gripen occupies a lot of space here already?)

Or we can start a fresh one thats a little critically minded...
Choose Crews
Offline

lipovitand

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2020, 00:38

Unread post03 Jun 2020, 07:19

XanderCrews wrote:
lipovitand wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
all jokes aside, I have been seriously wanting to add to some of the Gripen threads as much comprehensive, accurate, vetted, and rare, hard to find NOT COMPANY PROPAGANDA on the Gripen here on F-16.net. To try and get to the truth.

Gripen is a sexy airplane, what bothers me is the lies, hype and rabid fans that surround it and make anything approaching reason impossible.



Lets start shall we?



viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53203&start=225

We can either use this one (probably preferred as the Gripen occupies a lot of space here already?)

Or we can start a fresh one thats a little critically minded...



True, might be better to go on Gripen thread or its own since its not really news.

Maybe format it like this

Claim by Saab or fanboy(?): It can xyz

Counterclaim/Contradiction(must provide source): it can y bit not xz source http:/1.com

Own experience with respect to PERSEC/OPSEC: Im a @#@$ for a !@#!$ and based on my expirence I cost money to employ and it doesnt need me.

Do you think this is something that will be derailed?
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 234
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post03 Jun 2020, 09:13

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
lipovitand wrote:
Supposed to be cheap to operate I have seen $4000 USD, $4500 CAD, $4700 USD per hour to operate. That numbers goes back to what? 2012 and its for regular Gripen. Cost for E is unknown


This is a fake number. The reality is the Gripen C probably costs about as much to operate as an F-16. There is a high likelihood it costs more than an F-16 to operate because of the low production numbers and parts availabilty.

lipovitand wrote:800m runway takeoff and landing. Cool


Depends on the loadout. For a fully loaded Gripen going into combat 800m is probably not realistic. And the Gripen flies into combat at or close to MTOW in every single scenario because it is a light fighter.

lipovitand wrote:Its supposed to have super powerful ECM to protect itself and claim stealth is useless


It is also highly unlikely that the ECM on it is that good. It is probably just OK. For example, in Libya the Rafales were being escorted by Growlers, not Gripens.

lipovitand wrote:Offer full tech transfer and offsets. But dont own some of the components.


I wouldn't say some. They don't own the vast majority. 50% of the Gripen is manufactured in the US. It also has parts made in the UK, Italy, France, etc.

lipovitand wrote:It is heavier compare to older ABCD with small thrust increase but it can supercruise and ABCD cant.


The E has the same thrust as the C unless they get the EPE engine. But that requires the US Navy funding the development of the EPE engine and releasing it to Saab. My understanding was that the EPE engine hasn't been funded but maybe someone can correct me. It is highly unlikely that it can supercruise or do so at a meaningful speed to be relevant. it carries too little fuel for supercruise to be effective, either.

Can you give a link? I am not aware that F18 growler is escorted the Rafales!
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 385
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post03 Jun 2020, 10:24

wil59 wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
lipovitand wrote:
Supposed to be cheap to operate I have seen $4000 USD, $4500 CAD, $4700 USD per hour to operate. That numbers goes back to what? 2012 and its for regular Gripen. Cost for E is unknown


This is a fake number. The reality is the Gripen C probably costs about as much to operate as an F-16. There is a high likelihood it costs more than an F-16 to operate because of the low production numbers and parts availabilty.

lipovitand wrote:800m runway takeoff and landing. Cool


Depends on the loadout. For a fully loaded Gripen going into combat 800m is probably not realistic. And the Gripen flies into combat at or close to MTOW in every single scenario because it is a light fighter.

lipovitand wrote:Its supposed to have super powerful ECM to protect itself and claim stealth is useless


It is also highly unlikely that the ECM on it is that good. It is probably just OK. For example, in Libya the Rafales were being escorted by Growlers, not Gripens.

lipovitand wrote:Offer full tech transfer and offsets. But dont own some of the components.


I wouldn't say some. They don't own the vast majority. 50% of the Gripen is manufactured in the US. It also has parts made in the UK, Italy, France, etc.

lipovitand wrote:It is heavier compare to older ABCD with small thrust increase but it can supercruise and ABCD cant.


The E has the same thrust as the C unless they get the EPE engine. But that requires the US Navy funding the development of the EPE engine and releasing it to Saab. My understanding was that the EPE engine hasn't been funded but maybe someone can correct me. It is highly unlikely that it can supercruise or do so at a meaningful speed to be relevant. it carries too little fuel for supercruise to be effective, either.

Can you give a link? I am not aware that F18 growler is escorted the Rafales!


Is it that difficult for you to google "growler libya" and see what mission they performed there? Are you that inept?
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 234
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post05 Jun 2020, 13:57

wil59 wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
lipovitand wrote:
Supposed to be cheap to operate I have seen $4000 USD, $4500 CAD, $4700 USD per hour to operate. That numbers goes back to what? 2012 and its for regular Gripen. Cost for E is unknown


This is a fake number. The reality is the Gripen C probably costs about as much to operate as an F-16. There is a high likelihood it costs more than an F-16 to operate because of the low production numbers and parts availabilty.

lipovitand wrote:800m runway takeoff and landing. Cool


Depends on the loadout. For a fully loaded Gripen going into combat 800m is probably not realistic. And the Gripen flies into combat at or close to MTOW in every single scenario because it is a light fighter.

lipovitand wrote:Its supposed to have super powerful ECM to protect itself and claim stealth is useless


It is also highly unlikely that the ECM on it is that good. It is probably just OK. For example, in Libya the Rafales were being escorted by Growlers, not Gripens.

lipovitand wrote:Offer full tech transfer and offsets. But dont own some of the components.


I wouldn't say some. They don't own the vast majority. 50% of the Gripen is manufactured in the US. It also has parts made in the UK, Italy, France, etc.

lipovitand wrote:It is heavier compare to older ABCD with small thrust increase but it can supercruise and ABCD cant.


The E has the same thrust as the C unless they get the EPE engine. But that requires the US Navy funding the development of the EPE engine and releasing it to Saab. My understanding was that the EPE engine hasn't been funded but maybe someone can correct me. It is highly unlikely that it can supercruise or do so at a meaningful speed to be relevant. it carries too little fuel for supercruise to be effective, either.

Can you give a link? I am not aware that F18 growler is escorted the Rafales!
Say what you want is wrong !. During the first attack in Libya the Rafales were alone. Even before the SEAD suppression shots were fired by the Tomahawks.Again check your sources. It takes a little skill, you should be successful.
Offline

energo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 571
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post05 Jun 2020, 23:03

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
lipovitand wrote:
Supposed to be cheap to operate I have seen $4000 USD, $4500 CAD, $4700 USD per hour to operate. That numbers goes back to what? 2012 and its for regular Gripen. Cost for E is unknown


This is a fake number. The reality is the Gripen C probably costs about as much to operate as an F-16. There is a high likelihood it costs more than an F-16 to operate because of the low production numbers and parts availabilty.


The best public source of info to date is the Jane's 2012 report. In it, the premises for the basic 4700 USD per. hour compares realisticly to the 7000 USD for the US F-16C fleet, but - as the report emphasizes - it should not be taken at face value as there are many factors that would slew the figures in one or the other direction. The life-cycle cost, however, are much more difficult to estimate.

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
lipovitand wrote:800m runway takeoff and landing. Cool


Depends on the loadout. For a fully loaded Gripen going into combat 800m is probably not realistic.


The 800m was a requirement for the original missions and weapons configurations: Air-to-air, air-to-ground/maritime and recce.

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
lipovitand wrote:Its supposed to have super powerful ECM to protect itself and claim stealth is useless


It is also highly unlikely that the ECM on it is that good. It is probably just OK. For example, in Libya the Rafales were being escorted by Growlers, not Gripens.


I've talked to pilots on both sides who praise the ECM capabilities of the Gripen. The radar and datalink are also given high remarks, as is the cockpit and human-machine integration. One thing is evident: the Swedes are very proficient in electronics and software, which is not surprising.

They are also helped a great deal due to the uniform nature of their armed forces. Whereas NATO has a myriard of platforms and systems that need to be integrated, the Swedes have comparably few to cater for which is cost effective and provides a quicker development cycle.

lipovitand wrote:The E has the same thrust as the C unless they get the EPE engine.


The GE F414G in the E model is rated at 22,000lbs whereas the RM12 in the Gripen C is 18,100lbs.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3221
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post08 Jun 2020, 08:44

energo wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
lipovitand wrote:
Supposed to be cheap to operate I have seen $4000 USD, $4500 CAD, $4700 USD per hour to operate. That numbers goes back to what? 2012 and its for regular Gripen. Cost for E is unknown


This is a fake number. The reality is the Gripen C probably costs about as much to operate as an F-16. There is a high likelihood it costs more than an F-16 to operate because of the low production numbers and parts availabilty.


The best public source of info to date is the Jane's 2012 report. In it, the premises for the basic 4700 USD per. hour compares realisticly to the 7000 USD for the US F-16C fleet, but - as the report emphasizes - it should not be taken at face value as there are many factors that would slew the figures in one or the other direction. The life-cycle cost, however, are much more difficult to estimate.


Problem with that report is that it uses very different numbers for different aircraft. They use the cost of flying just one hour in Gripen C. Basically just the cost of jet fuel and lubricants. Then they use state life-cycle costs involved for flying a whole fleet of F-35s for 30 years (including stuff like inflation, aircraft upgrades and improvements to air bases) and dividing that with the number of flight hours. Other aircraft in the report fall somewhere in between those two. Some of that is stated in the report but a lot of people still read it as all numbers are totally comparable. It's not a very well made report IMO as it's not very cohesive and information is not comparable. I'm sure they could've asked for some life-cycle costs for Gripen aircraft from Saab or Swedish Air Force.

It's no wonder that Gripen comes as cheapest in such a report. It's the smallest jet with least powerful engine. So it will use least amount of fuel and lubricants to do one hour fun ride. That's totally irrelevant to all air forces around the world as it's only a small fraction of overall life-cycle costs and doesn't take into account combat effectiveness of the aircraft.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3221
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post08 Jun 2020, 09:03

energo wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
lipovitand wrote:Its supposed to have super powerful ECM to protect itself and claim stealth is useless


It is also highly unlikely that the ECM on it is that good. It is probably just OK. For example, in Libya the Rafales were being escorted by Growlers, not Gripens.


I've talked to pilots on both sides who praise the ECM capabilities of the Gripen. The radar and datalink are also given high remarks, as is the cockpit and human-machine integration. One thing is evident: the Swedes are very proficient in electronics and software, which is not surprising.


ECM/EW capabilties of Gripen seem to be good for a 4th gen fighter. That is supported with for example the Swiss evaluation a decade ago where Gripen EW system was one of the strong points for it. Of course Rafale was slightly ahead when it came to EW systems, but EF Typhoon was behind it. CNI system, SA/Force coordination and pilot workload however were just OK and got lowest scores of the three Eurocanards. I'd say it's a good 4th gen fighter when it comes to those capabilities, but nothing exceptional compared to latest 4th gen aircraft from competitors. Swede are definitely very proficient in electronics and software as are all Nordic countries. All however are too small and spend too little in military to develop really complex systems like aircraft alone. I think Saab has realized this as they have been teaming up with larger companies for many latest projects.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6439
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Jun 2020, 16:25

energo wrote:
The best public source of info to date is the Jane's 2012 report. In it, the premises for the basic 4700 USD per. hour compares realisticly to the 7000 USD for the US F-16C fleet, but - as the report emphasizes - it should not be taken at face value as there are many factors that would slew the figures in one or the other direction. The life-cycle cost, however, are much more difficult to estimate.



Gripen's service entry turns 24 tomorrow, and in 24 years we have ONE self admittedly constrained company sponsored report littered with false numbers to show as the best evidence for over 2 decades of claims?

And this report is so tainted, false, and incompetent as to be absolutely useless. It was wrong in the first place. its 8 years old, got every other aircraft price wrong, and has no bearing on Gripen E cost. its wrong about 6 different ways and completely inapplicable

Is a program that's so cheap and open we have ONE company sponsored report with erroneous numbers in 24 years. How on earth is any of this taken seriously??? The double standard is sickening.

Its absolutely insane that an airplane who's primary goal is cost, no one can't tell you the cost. I can only imagine if the people in F-35 land got away with such drivel.

This has been my issue for a very long time now. Its fans can regurgitate company talking points ad nausem and give you a million different words on how inexpensive it is, and when you ask what it cost apples to apples dollars to dollars, they steer you to a false "study" whom was paid by Saab using a Middleman to hide any bias that has no relation to the actual cost. They remind me of being in college and trying to stretch 3 sentences into 3 pages to get the grade. its lots of platitudes and NO NUMBERS isn't that odd? an airplane that exists for the numbers but no one has or uses numbers. This is supposed to be an "Accountant's airplane" but it turns out its an English/marketing major's.

The Swiss Estimate put Gripen E at like $29,000 an hour. So this amazing cost conscious fighter is somewhere between $4000, and $29,000 dollars CPFH. And anyone who doubts this will be steered to the same single piece of debunked trash we have been seeing for years

Image

We have no idea what it costs at all, but we can tell you decisively its cheap?

I'm sick of suffering this stupidity. The only thing that Janes $4700 report is for is people using it to instantly identify themselves as ignorant of the subject in that sense it has been amazing.

Image
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6439
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Jun 2020, 21:05

wil59 wrote:Say what you want is wrong !. During the first attack in Libya the Rafales were alone. Even before the SEAD suppression shots were fired by the Tomahawks.Again check your sources. It takes a little skill, you should be successful.


No it wasn't of the 20 aircraft involved only 8 were Rafales. And theres far more to it:

France was the first coalition partner to strike, on March 19 at 6:00 p.m., a few hours
before British and U.S. forces went into action. This decision was taken for a series of
reasons. It was, of course, Sarkozy’s highly political decision to demonstrate French
resolve and take a leadership role. The fact that the strike was announced during the
coalition senior-level meeting on Libya and took place immediately after the meeting
maximized the political and media effects. The decision also was prompted by a sense
of humanitarian emergency, as Qaddafi’s armored forces were closing on Benghazi.
The choice of military targets in the ground forces encircling Benghazi was consistent
with that concern.


From a military perspective, this first strike did not go by the book according to
standard U.S. practice, as SEAD operations or the confirmed destruction of Libyan
airpower had not yet taken place. It was, therefore, a rather risky operation carried out
successfully, and not merely a symbolic attack. It involved around 20 air force aircraft:
eight multirole Rafales, two Mirage 2000-5s (for air superiority), two Mirage 2000Ds
(for interdiction), six C-135FR tankers, and one E-3F AWACS, striking targets located
some 1,500 kilometers from their bases. Four Libyan armored vehicles were reportedly
destroyed during the mission, two by GBU-12 laser-guided bombs dropped by the
Mirage 2000Ds and two by AASM guided weapons launched by Rafales. This was
a rather small number by military standards, but it stopped the advance of Qaddafi’s
leading forces at the outskirts of Benghazi and probably helped prevent a massacre in
the city. Had Benghazi fallen, the outcome of the war could have been quite different.
As such, this initial strike served a critical political and strategic purpose.


As Christian Anrig has noted, this attack could point at a difference in “ways of
war”:
Specifically, the United States musters overwhelming force to produce decisive
results at the least cost of lives. In contrast, former European colonial powers have
a history of fighting outgunned and outnumbered . . . This attitude is also reflected
in the French air force’s initial strikes on 19 March 2011. Some commentators were
quick to play down the risks involved, arguing that the French had identified a gap
in the fixed-site air defense system, but the threat of mobile surface-to air missiles
undoubtedly remained.11
In their post-war assessment, the French point at this first strike to downplay their
reliance on U.S. assets for SEAD. This assessment is correct for this particular raid,
since no losses occurred. Libyan air defenses nonetheless identified the French raid
and engaged it with an SA-8 surface-to-air missile system, which fortunately was out
of range.12 It is, however, questionable that such a risky tactic would have worked for
the whole campaign, as the French were probably not ready to take significant risks of
aircraft losses. Therefore, this opening move might denote a divergence of operational
habits. The French, like the British, are used to making do with less.

Despite France’s early accomplishment, the first days of operations relied heavily on U.S. assets, especially ones that the French were unable to provide, including
SEAD aircraft and Tomahawk cruise missiles that conducted deep strikes against critical infrastructure. (Of the 199 sea-launched cruise missiles fired in the first ten days,
192 were American and seven were British. None of the missiles were French, as the
French naval equivalent, SCALP Naval, had yet to enter service.) Some have criticized
this coalition show of force as unnecessary overkill, with the potential for negative
political impact among Arab states in particular. In the first three days of Operation
Odyssey Dawn, the French conducted about 55 sorties (slightly more than one-quarter
of the grand total, with U.S. forces conducting the bulk of the operations).


You can go screw off to another thread now, and leave the mighty French military that couldn't even topple sorry and destitute Libya by itself out of this thread.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24748
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Jun 2020, 21:39

the img 2 posts above at: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com ... f=1&nofb=1 did not show in IE11 Win10 but showed in EDGE & FoxyFire.
Attachments
HelloLoser.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 385
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post09 Jun 2020, 05:43

wil59 wrote:Say what you want is wrong !. During the first attack in Libya the Rafales were alone. Even before the SEAD suppression shots were fired by the Tomahawks.Again check your sources. It takes a little skill, you should be successful.


https://theaviationist.com/2011/03/20/o ... explained/

For sure the solitary attack made by the French contingent was at least unusual/unexpected, especially since French Air Force lacks some specialties (or, let’s say, has not in its inventory the proper kind of aircraft even if Rafale can on the paper somehow fulfil the tasks) and it’s not capable of autonomously performing those missions that are usually required at the beginning of a campaign, like SEAD and accompanying active kinetic EW.


On the other side it must be noted that, according to the most informed sources, any SAM sites in the Benghazi area are not believed to be operational and, MANPADs aside, real threats to the French fighters were extremely limited in that area. For this reason, without much trouble a French attack plane (Mirage 2000D or Rafale) fired the first shot of Operation Odyssey Dawn


Like I said, learn how to use google instead of being a lazy a$$. The Rafale only operated in areas with no air defense until the Growlers arrived. This took me 1 minute to find. Good luck next time but it doesn’t seem like you have enough skill to be successful.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post09 Jun 2020, 06:08

Tres bien. Meme les français ne peuvent pas compter.
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/english/ope ... ions-begin

A total of twenty aircraft are engaged today (8 Rafale, 2 Mirage 2000-5, 2 Mirage 2000 D, 6 C 135 tanker aircraft and one E3F AWACS), as well as two anti-air and air defence destroyers (French Navy ships Jean Bart and Forbin) which are sailing off the coasts of Libya. These French military assets have been deployed in close coordination with our allies, giving time for the multinational coalition to set up.
Offline

notam123

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2020, 12:59

Unread post09 Jun 2020, 12:15

Like I said, learn how to use google instead of being a lazy a$$. The Rafale only operated in areas with no air defense until the Growlers arrived. This took me 1 minute to find. Good luck next time but it doesn’t seem like you have enough skill to be successful


afaik, Rafale never acted WITH Growlers (compatibility issues), show me ONE example of coordinated action?
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 234
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post09 Jun 2020, 15:08

notam123 wrote:
Like I said, learn how to use google instead of being a lazy a$$. The Rafale only operated in areas with no air defense until the Growlers arrived. This took me 1 minute to find. Good luck next time but it doesn’t seem like you have enough skill to be successful


afaik, Rafale never acted WITH Growlers (compatibility issues), show me ONE example of coordinated action?

You are right !. The problem with the previous comments is that they don't take what they say seriously, I asked for a link explaining if a growler had escorted a Rafale ?!. The only answer they give me is that I don't use Google, ok, I don't even want to answer them, it's incapable!
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests