F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

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

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post28 May 2019, 20:51

Gripen's magic EW pod Arexis shouldn't be compared to Growler. It's going to be very modest in terms of output since it has neither the propeller of ALQ-99 or the vastly more powerful ram air ducts of NGJ. It's going to be self contained and/or draw extra power from already weak Gripen powerplant (meant to be for both the old and new G).

There's also the matter of anyone not buying it yet (the external pod - confusingly the Gripen E/F's internal EW suite is also Arexis). So it's looking for the first one to pay the development. Often even Sweden isn't willing to put money where Saab's mouth is.

the new Arexis EW pod (above) provides electronic stealth

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... e-products
"Electronic stealth" :devil:
Last edited by magitsu on 28 May 2019, 21:33, edited 3 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5982
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post28 May 2019, 21:32

magitsu wrote:Gripen's magic EW pod Arexis shouldn't be compared to Growler. It's going to be very modest in terms of output since it has neither the propeller of ALQ-99 or the vastly more powerful ram air ducts of NGJ. It's going to be self contained and/or draw extra power from already weak Gripen powerplant (meant to be for both the old and new G).



Why do you have to be so negative? let them add cost and weight/drag. All "cheap light" fighters could use more cost and weight/drag



There's also the matter of anyone not buying it yet. So it's looking for the first one to pay the development. Often even Sweden isn't willing to put money where Saab's mouth is.



Image

how dare you, sir
Choose Crews
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post28 May 2019, 21:42

Indeed, naval Gripen is a good joke. Would be reinventing the wheel, with someone who has no experience in carrier based aviation.

If Arexis GaN magic proves to be good, we'll undoubtedly see everyone snapping them up since they're supposed to be useful with any fighter. Maybe they should cancel the NGJ already. :wink:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5982
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post28 May 2019, 21:47

Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator

And then of course you have full "Gripen brain", when you're making claims not even the company makes or actually contradicts. symptoms include hypersensitivity, lack of sources, denial, and amnesia about numerous Gripen shortfalls and setbacks.
Choose Crews
Offline

alphaxraylima

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2018, 16:42

Unread post29 May 2019, 08:22

magitsu wrote:Gripen's magic EW pod Arexis shouldn't be compared to Growler. It's going to be very modest in terms of output since it has neither the propeller of ALQ-99 or the vastly more powerful ram air ducts of NGJ. It's going to be self contained and/or draw extra power from already weak Gripen powerplant (meant to be for both the old and new G).

There's also the matter of anyone not buying it yet (the external pod - confusingly the Gripen E/F's internal EW suite is also Arexis). So it's looking for the first one to pay the development. Often even Sweden isn't willing to put money where Saab's mouth is.

the new Arexis EW pod (above) provides electronic stealth

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... e-products
"Electronic stealth" :devil:


I haven't seen any specifics for the Saab Pod or the NGJ so making such a comparison is difficult, though I would agree with the latter probably having an output advantage.

When it comes to the ALQ-99 it has a maximum output of 6.8 kW while the same number for the radar on the Gripen A is more than 10 kW. So even that aircraft could generate enough excess power. And an advantage of going without a RAT is that, unlike the ALQ-99 equipped EA-18G, a Gripen equipped with the Saab jammer pods would most likely not be limited to a subsonic flight envelope and "the USN dropped an earlier supersonic requirement for the new NGJ pod because the performance penalty in other areas of the flight envelop are too great".

When it comes to who would pay for the Saab pod, even without a specified launch costumer, it's already in development with flight trails set to begin later this year.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2811
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post29 May 2019, 10:21

Radars can easily have higher power output than jamming systems as they usually transmit short pulses with relatively high peak power levels and low average power. Power generation needs only to be somewhat higher than average power to meet the demand as capacitors are used to allow high pulse power levels. This is why some larger surveillance radars have peak output power level measured in megawatts and power generation is measured in kilowatts. Jamming system on the other hand transmits continuously which means their peak and average power can be almost the same.

I'd say that single ALQ-99 needs significantly more generated power than Gripen PS-05/A radar for operation. Naturally Growler usually carries several of these, magnifying the issue. I really wonder if Gripen has enough spare power generation capability to operate all the systems simultaneously, including jamming pods.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1724
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post29 May 2019, 10:28

alphaxraylima wrote:Which is why I wrote locate and not detect. Even the Gripen A had such a capability as "the PS-05/A can operate in passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). Two PS-05/As can exchange information by datalink and locate the target by triangulation" https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gripen%2 ... a085251568

What the Gripen E brings to the table, other than new and improved receivers and avionics, is a beamed data link (similar to the F-35 MADL) which greatly limits the primary disadvantage of what the article you linked refer to as multi-ship triangulation, not being able to stay silent. Because even though the friendly aircraft still have to transmit to perform multi-ship triangulation, now they can do so in a way that is very difficult for the enemy to detect.

In that case, what stop F-35 from sharing data with their squadron ?
You see the one with his radar online but not everyone
Image
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post29 May 2019, 14:28

alphaxraylima wrote:an advantage of going without a RAT is that, unlike the ALQ-99 equipped EA-18G, a Gripen equipped with the Saab jammer pods would most likely not be limited to a subsonic flight envelope

Let's forget about the supersonic flight envelope fantasy. It seems like a budget solution.
In September 2017, Saab unveiled its AREXIS airborne EW jamming pod, which is designed to equip 4.5- or fifth-generation fighter aircraft, or business jet platforms.
The pod is intended to provide low frequency radar jamming, typically in the VHF and UHF ranges of 133-144MHz, 216-225MHz, 420-450MHz and 890-942MHz, the company told MT.

https://www.monch.com/mpg/ebooks/milita ... .html#p=63

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/1 ... eam-bizjet (comparable solution might need "a bit" more than just strap on an Arexis pod) :wink:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5982
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 May 2019, 15:32

alphaxraylima wrote:When it comes to the ALQ-99 it has a maximum output of 6.8 kW while the same number for the radar on the Gripen A is more than 10 kW. So even that aircraft could generate enough excess power. And an advantage of going without a RAT is that, unlike the ALQ-99 equipped EA-18G, a Gripen equipped with the Saab jammer pods would most likely not be limited to a subsonic flight envelope and "the USN dropped an earlier supersonic requirement for the new NGJ pod because the performance penalty in other areas of the flight envelop are too great".


I'm sure they can test the Gripen pod to super sonic all they like, it will almost never see super sonic in flight anyway. "Super cruise" isn't going to happen unless they substitute the pod for the droptank I presume. The drag penalty is going to be tight on this bird along with everything else.

ALQ99 was forever subsonic, NGJ not being super sonic is no surprise, depending on design it may well be capable of supersonic, the windmill I believe is what kept alq99 sub sonic. They may well be capable of super sonic flight now, just not while operating. (but I'll need someone in the know to confirm this)


I guess I'm old fashioned. I was told about what an impressive EW airplane this thing would be with internal gizmology alone, now we are throwing on pods already...

When it comes to who would pay for the Saab pod, even without a specified launch costumer, it's already in development with flight trails set to begin later this year.


Of course its in development with flight trails set to begin, I've heard that plenty of times regarding this program over the years. Will this be an actual no joke pod or a "Demo pod" which will be an old jammer stretched and we will wait 10 years to see the real deal?

I had to hear for over 10 years how Gripen NG was in development, and then you say "you know this aircraft has been in developlment over 10 years" and Gripen Fans tell you thats "not true!" even though we have plenty of Gripen puff pieces that not only talk about development but also boast about testing using various other Gripens in the mean time. At the time Gripen fans were very proud "look at them making the most of things! Getting testing done" Then you bring it up 7 or 8 years later and they get defensive. Claimed its only been in development the last couple years after Swiss deal fell apart... then you get to see Gripen Brain in action and you post articles of Saab execs boasting of testing and development and how delivery is just around the corner (back in 2009), and then you have to hear about how the execs were lying, or confused, or that wasn't true.

Gripen NG is yesterdays fighter in a "forever Tomorrow"

It's gonna be here guys I swear! Just a few more years!
Choose Crews
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post29 May 2019, 18:15

It's almost like a religion, waiting for the Second Coming. Where the first one fizzed, but we'll be back one day.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2149
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post29 May 2019, 18:36

XanderCrews wrote:Gripen NG is yesterdays fighter in a "forever Tomorrow"


In my last two posts I mentioned Pink Floyd and so here's one more song/clip from them, this one (namely the title) specially dedicated to the Gripen E/F program:



:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post29 May 2019, 20:39

magitsu wrote:Gripen's magic EW pod Arexis shouldn't be compared to Growler. It's going to be very modest in terms of output since it has neither the propeller of ALQ-99 or the vastly more powerful ram air ducts of NGJ. It's going to be self contained and/or draw extra power from already weak Gripen powerplant (meant to be for both the old and new G).

There's also the matter of anyone not buying it yet (the external pod - confusingly the Gripen E/F's internal EW suite is also Arexis). So it's looking for the first one to pay the development. Often even Sweden isn't willing to put money where Saab's mouth is.
:

A bit perplexing with the “hate” on all things Saab. Differentiate between the Gripen E/F and the defense company as a whole. Saab runs a US subsidiary Saab Defense & Security USA which provides products to the US defense market. Presumably not all things Saab are inferior or we would not be buying Sea Giraffe. An-SPN-50 (v)1, Saab training and simulation systems, or have Boeing partnering with Saab on the T-X.

As far as the Arexis pod. It shouldn’t be compared to the ALQ-249. The Raytheon pod is a mid-band jammer. From what is written about the Arexis, it is focused on low band jamming. There will be a market for it, and considering the components: wide band digital receivers, DFRM, GaN arrays, etc, it will be competitive. The ALQ-99 Low band transmitter-antenna was a stopgap modernization for an obsolete component and is already over a decade old.

Incidentally, speaking of powering the pod, the NGJ-LB (increment 2) was awarded to NG-L3 was due to the excessive drag of the Raytheon pods fold out doors for the ram-air turbine. The Increment 2 pod will not use this system and NG was tasked with providing power to the pod in a smaller, less draggy package. By the looks of the one picture (alleged) of the NG-L3 Increment 2 prototype pod, it does not have an obvious inlet or propeller for a ram air turbine for power. No details on whether it will have an internal power source.

NGJ-LB has been pushed back by ongoing SWAP-C considerations and alternatives, I believe IOC is planned for the mid-2020’s. Gotta give Saab credit for agile design process and accelerated testing of an escort jamming pod to meet LB threats. We’ll see how it does on the market, but there is a need, and it’s not like the US has any ALQ-99 pods to spare for allies.
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post29 May 2019, 20:55

No hate. We know and acknowledge their many successful products.

It's more about the occasional lack of Gripen fanboys' willingness to admit there might be certain real world constraints (time, money, experience) that can't be skipped past. There's a much healthier discussion to be had once we admit that it's not on schedule nor it's truly comparable to F-35 or Growler. It still can be impressive in its own right, even advanced (like data links inside the 4 jet flight).

NGJ-LB will clearly be serving different need than Arexis based on the output alone. Jammer needs power and like hornetfinn said, it's very hard to see Gripen carrying multiple pods like proper EW planes.
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post30 May 2019, 05:53

alphaxraylima wrote:Quite a lot here, I would argue that, going what Saab has published regarding the Echo, it would be far from useless against an A2/AD threat. It's currently the only fighter flying with an internal GaN EW suite and it pretty much always carries, at least, two IRIS-T missiles which are said to be able to kinematically engage SAMs post launch. In addition Saab is set to begin flight trails of an external Low-Band Jammer Pod later this year which also, like the in development American Next Generation Jammer for the Growler, uses GaN.

When it comes to weapons things like the British Spear III missile (similar in size and weight to the American GBU-39 or GBU-53) with its range of 75 nautical miles will give pretty much any fighter the ability to put a plethora of munitions on a well defended target while remaining below the radar horizon and with its two way data link it could be guided from an asset other than the launch aircraft, while all friendly aircraft remains safe, outside the engagement envelope of the A2/AD threat.

When it comes to dealing with AWACS, if EW isn't enough, the possible threat of a very long range Meteor missile coming your way might force the aircraft to remain to far from the area of operations to be effective.

Regarding the threat of ground based radars on a OCA mission, what I mentioned above still applies. Either remaining below the radar horizon or making sure than one or two of your aircraft are configured accordingly, with low band jammer pods. And with ground based radars not being as size limited as the ones in fighter aircraft such radars might create difficulties for stealthy fighter aircraft as well. For example, the AN/TPY-2, part of the THAAD system, can, according to Raytheon, "track a home run from a ball park from several hundred miles away". Applying the radar equation (and assuming a baseball is a sphere with an RCS of about 0.02 m^2) that would bring the tracking range of a target with an RCS of -30 dbsm to about 230 km, and that is against an X-band radar, using a radar with alonger wave length should increase the detection range even further. At that point you might say that a non stealthy aircraft will be detected sooner and while that is indeed true the fighter needs to be in the LoS of the radar in the first place for that to happen and at such a range the radar horizon is at about 10000 ft.


^^this is a textbook example of a fanboy argument.

1: Jammers benefit stealth aircraft more than non-stealth, because the amount of jamming noise required to 'hide' an aircraft from radar is proportional to radar-cross-section.
Due to having many thousands of times higher RCS than the F-35, the Gripen requires many thousands of times more jamming power to hide it from radar.

2: SPEAR III doesn't have enough stand-off range to deal with longer range SAMs; Russia's 48N6 series for the S-300 and S-400 are 150 to 250 km in range, while the 40N6 is 380 km in range.

3: if the Gripen is flying below radar horizon, it's range is going to suffer compared to a F-35 cruising at high altitude for its entire mission.
And the Gripen is shorter legged than the F-35 to begin with.

4: F-35 doesn't even need AWACS; a group of F-35s can have a single plane with its radar on while the rest rely on passive sensors.
And an AWACS is able to detect the Gripen at well beyond the range of Meteor.

5: you cherry-picked one of the most powerful radars in the world, one intended for anti-ballistic missile duty, not air defence.
Such powerful radars are very expensive and rare, so would be targeted by longer range stand-off weapons.

A more realistic threat for the F-35 is the S-400's Gravestone radar, which can detect a 4 m^2 target at 250 km range. Against the 0.0001 m^2 F-35, that is only 18 km, versus Gripen in combat configuration (1 m^2 or higher) 177 km or more.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3437
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post30 May 2019, 15:03

optimist wrote:It's almost like a religion, waiting for the Second Coming. Where the first one fizzed, but we'll be back one day.


What a fantastic analogy, 5 stars.

Even a cursory examination of Gripen reveals issues. Issue #1 (and the issue that underlies all others) is size. Way too small to carry enough fuel and enough weapons. You can have "enough" of one or the other, but not both. Some of this handicap is offset by miniaturization (both in weapons and avionics), but all things being equal, even 2nd hand legacy F-18's will have better overall capability.

So anyone looking for an air superiority machine/OCA or robust strike platform.. they need to look elsewhere. SAAB should have never entered into the game of trying to make it competitive with advanced F-16's, 18's etc and stuck with its only real strength: A zippy little point air defense fighter at a competitive price. Now that SAAB has erased the competitive price and still failed to achieve even legacy F-18 capability, it encompasses the worst of both worlds..
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests