F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

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

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post30 May 2019, 16:56

mixelflick wrote: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.


Definitely this, it reminds me of the F-5, which was developed into the much larger YF-17 that eventually became the F-18.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4530
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post30 May 2019, 18:27

That further became the F/A-18E/F/G. The SHornet is the ultimate evolution of the Tiger/Talon.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

alphaxraylima

Newbie

Newbie

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

Unread post30 May 2019, 19:28

knowan wrote:
^^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.


So a comment about the stated capabilities of the Gripen is a automatically a "fan boy argument"?

1/2/3 Agreed VLO and EA are synergetic, no argument here. However, with even smaller munitions like the Spear III getting to the point of being able to be launched from stand-off ranges there is little need for the launch aircraft to get closer than the target being just inside the engagement envelope of said weapon, in this case around 140 km. If the Gravestone radar can detect the Gripen at about 180 km you would only need to take evasive action (EA, flying below the radar horizon and so on) during a, short, 40 km ingrees and egrees. At 140 km the horizon is at about 5000 ft, which isn't really that low anyway. And the usefullness of the 40N6 against highly maneuverable targets, like fighters, has been questioned, like in this paragraph from a recent FOI report, "Terrain masking poses an obvious challenge for detecting and tracking targets at low altitude. Furthermore, the missile has a limited supply of velocity, which would be quickly drained as the target manoeuvres. All of this means that while a long-range Sam system such as the S-400 would certainly be a threat at a very long range to an airliner cruising at 36 000 feet, the actual effective range against a fighter at low altitude could well be under 20 km, depending on the terrain"

When it comes to effective range the F-35 in an internal air-to-air configuration is said to have a maximum combat radius of about 1400 km while the Gripen E is said to have a combat radius of 1500 km with 30 minutes on station time, which should give it a maximum combat radius of about 1700 km, and like pointed out above, the latter would, in that scenario, only have to fly at lower altitudes for a short duration. Yes that is in an air-to air configuration and the Gripen will suffer more from the addition of heavier and draggier air-to-ground ordnance but two BRU-61s with four SDBs or Spear IIIs each aren't that draggy or heavy.

4/5 most definitely, though the radar of a single F-35 will be more susceptible to jamming from another fighter compared to the radar of an AWACS, due to it having a higher frequency than most AWACS and such jammers are easier to fit inside a fighter. The range of the Meteor missile approaches 400 km in some situations, based on a study previously posted on this forum, and unlike fighter aircraft AWACS are neither fast nor very maneuverable. The Gravestone is just one of the radars employed with the S-400 and RCS is dependent on wave length, so while the F-35 is probably very good at avoiding the X-band Gravestone it will probably have a harder time against radars operating at lower bands. Indeed the AN/APY-9 equipped E-2D gives the USN such a capability against low observable targets.
Last edited by alphaxraylima on 30 May 2019, 20:18, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

alphaxraylima

Newbie

Newbie

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

Unread post30 May 2019, 20:13

eloise wrote:
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


Nothing, and that is a tactic that pretty much all modern fighter are likely employ. Though, the X-band radar in a fighter will be easier for other fighters to jam compared to pretty much all other radars due to size constraints (high frequency, usually X-band), and the fact that a lot of AESA radars (including the one on the Gripen E) can be used as high output jammers. The issue is further amplified (pun kind of intended) when a you have a flight of let's say four aircraft in both sides employing cooperative jamming techniques.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6018
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post31 May 2019, 00:19

knowan wrote:
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.



Whats so crazy about the idea that the Gripen will run EMCOM so perfrectly the airframe and heat signature will simply disappear?

alphaxraylima wrote:while the Gripen E is said to have a combat radius of 1500 km with 30 minutes on station time, which should give it a maximum combat radius of about 1700 km, and like pointed out above, the latter would, in that scenario, only have to fly at lower altitudes for a short duration.


No no it really flies 2000 km with 45 minutes on station time. If we're gonna make things up on outdated claims might as well go for the big win.

just throw numbers out there. We'll build the plane later and see how close we were

It weighs 7000 kg

oh weight that was the "target weight" even though we wrote it as a specification on all our stuff

its really 7400 kg.

oh weight, its actually 8000 kgs.

not that coming in 2200 pounds beyond the target weight would change the numbers. its all the same of course, it affected nothing somehow. and would why it you know? adding 1000 kilos to a light fighter, surely that's nothing to notice.


mixelflick wrote:
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..


Hindsight is always 20/20, but the Gripen NG (and you can take this a step further if you want and say the Gripen, but lets not go there yet) is not worth it. anytime you're doing a follow on design you have to make decisions about what to keep, lose, or change. I think its out of synch. I think they made the wrong decisions. but its on now. oh well.

IMHO Gripen NG, needed to be an F414 equipped Gripen, expand the intakes to make F414 worth it. F414 is 5 percent more fuel efficient from the start. so you've gained a small amount of range there. Add the whizbang cosmic gizmos as Gums would say and be done. No it wouldn't have the extra fuel, or extra set of pylons, but that also keeps away from F-16 territory which is the real problem.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 31 May 2019, 01:37, edited 4 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 298
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post31 May 2019, 00:43

alphaxraylima wrote:
So a comment about the stated capabilities of the Gripen is a automatically a "fan boy argument"?

1/2/3 Agreed VLO and EA are synergetic, no argument here. However, with even smaller munitions like the Spear III getting to the point of being able to be launched from stand-off ranges there is little need for the launch aircraft to get closer than the target being just inside the engagement envelope of said weapon, in this case around 140 km. If the Gravestone radar can detect the Gripen at about 180 km you would only need to take evasive action (EA, flying below the radar horizon and so on) during a, short, 40 km ingrees and egrees. At 140 km the horizon is at about 5000 ft, which isn't really that low anyway. And the usefullness of the 40N6 against highly maneuverable targets, like fighters, has been questioned, like in this paragraph from a recent FOI report, "Terrain masking poses an obvious challenge for detecting and tracking targets at low altitude. Furthermore, the missile has a limited supply of velocity, which would be quickly drained as the target manoeuvres. All of this means that while a long-range Sam system such as the S-400 would certainly be a threat at a very long range to an airliner cruising at 36 000 feet, the actual effective range against a fighter at low altitude could well be under 20 km, depending on the terrain"

When it comes to effective range the F-35 in an internal air-to-air configuration is said to have a maximum combat radius of about 1400 km while the Gripen E is said to have a combat radius of 1500 km with 30 minutes on station time, which should give it a maximum combat radius of about 1700 km, and like pointed out above, the latter would, in that scenario, only have to fly at lower altitudes for a short duration. Yes that is in an air-to air configuration and the Gripen will suffer more from the addition of heavier and draggier air-to-ground ordnance but two BRU-61s with four SDBs or Spear IIIs each aren't that draggy or heavy.

4/5 most definitely, though the radar of a single F-35 will be more susceptible to jamming from another fighter compared to the radar of an AWACS, due to it having a higher frequency than most AWACS and such jammers are easier to fit inside a fighter. The range of the Meteor missile approaches 400 km in some situations, based on a study previously posted on this forum, and unlike fighter aircraft AWACS are neither fast nor very maneuverable. The Gravestone is just one of the radars employed with the S-400 and RCS is dependent on wave length, so while the F-35 is probably very good at avoiding the X-band Gravestone it will probably have a harder time against radars operating at lower bands. Indeed the AN/APY-9 equipped E-2D gives the USN such a capability against low observable targets.


These are arguments made by someone who has no operational experience or knowledge of how this actually goes down in real life...There’s a reason why it’s called an IADS, and not “only the S400 defense system”.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1728
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post31 May 2019, 02:57

alphaxraylima wrote:Nothing, and that is a tactic that pretty much all modern fighter are likely employ. Though, the X-band radar in a fighter will be easier for other fighters to jam compared to pretty much all other radars due to size constraints (high frequency, usually X-band), and the fact that a lot of AESA radars (including the one on the Gripen E) can be used as high output jammers. The issue is further amplified (pun kind of intended) when a you have a flight of let's say four aircraft in both sides employing cooperative jamming techniques.

Then wouldn't these jammers get located by ASQ-239 and triangulation?

alphaxraylima wrote:though the radar of a single F-35 will be more susceptible to jamming from another fighter compared to the radar of an AWACS, due to it having a higher frequency than most AWACS and such jammers are easier to fit inside a fighter.

While this might sounds reasonable at first glance, it is not necessarily true.
While there is no doubt that AWACs radar is more powerful than APG-81, thanks to F-35's RCS, APG-81 can stay much closer to target area and because signal reflection degrade with forth root of distance, APG-81 might actually be harder to deceive.

alphaxraylima wrote:When it comes to effective range the F-35 in an internal air-to-air configuration is said to have a maximum combat radius of about 1400 km while the Gripen E is said to have a combat radius of 1500 km with 30 minutes on station time, which should give it a maximum combat radius of about 1700 km, and like pointed out above, the latter would, in that scenario, only have to fly at lower altitudes for a short duration. Yes that is in an air-to air configuration and the Gripen will suffer more from the addition of heavier and draggier air-to-ground ordnance but two BRU-61s with four SDBs or Spear IIIs each aren't that draggy or heavy.

Didn't Gripen NG has shorter combat radius than Rafale and F-18 and both have shorter combat radius than F-35 if all are on internal fuel?
Assuming you want to have 1500 km combat radius on Gripen, you will need 3 external fuel tanks at least, which harm both agility, acceleration, speed and RCS.
22.PNG

gripen.jpg
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post31 May 2019, 04:12

alphaxraylima wrote:So a comment about the stated capabilities of the Gripen is a automatically a "fan boy argument"?


It becomes a fanboy argument when you make numerous biased assumptions and mistakes that favour the Gripen.


alphaxraylima wrote:1/2/3 Agreed VLO and EA are synergetic, no argument here. However, with even smaller munitions like the Spear III getting to the point of being able to be launched from stand-off ranges there is little need for the launch aircraft to get closer than the target being just inside the engagement envelope of said weapon, in this case around 140 km. If the Gravestone radar can detect the Gripen at about 180 km you would only need to take evasive action (EA, flying below the radar horizon and so on) during a, short, 40 km ingrees and egrees. At 140 km the horizon is at about 5000 ft, which isn't really that low anyway. And the usefullness of the 40N6 against highly maneuverable targets, like fighters, has been questioned, like in this paragraph from a recent FOI report, "Terrain masking poses an obvious challenge for detecting and tracking targets at low altitude. Furthermore, the missile has a limited supply of velocity, which would be quickly drained as the target manoeuvres. All of this means that while a long-range Sam system such as the S-400 would certainly be a threat at a very long range to an airliner cruising at 36 000 feet, the actual effective range against a fighter at low altitude could well be under 20 km, depending on the terrain"


You're making a lot more assumptions here.

Gravestone is only one of the S-400 radars, one of the shortest ranged, and the detection range figure I used is actually the lowest estimate; others put it at 250 km vs 1 m^2, so it would detect the Gripen at that range while the F-35 would be just 25 km.

Other S-400 radars are stuff like the VHF-band Vostok E, which is something like 415 km vs 1 m^2; even if F-35's RCS increases to 0.003 m^2 in the VHF-band, it will still only be detected at 97 km.
While the Vostok E isn't an engagement radar, the 40N6 has an active radar seeker so it can likely be used as the US Navy is doing with the AN/APY-9 providing target data for SM-6 missiles.

The S-400 isn't just one radar; it is a collection of radars integrated into a single system, and unless you can evade them all you're in for a world of hurt.

It doesn't matter if the effective range of the missiles would be short against the Gripen flying so low, because the Gripen doesn't have any choice but to fly so low, or else it has a high risk of being shot down.
As a result, the Gripen would have to fly both ingress and egress at low altitude, likely for as large a distance as 300 km each way; with such prolonged low altitude flight, the Gripen's combat radius will be reduced to far less than 1000 km.



alphaxraylima wrote:When it comes to effective range the F-35 in an internal air-to-air configuration is said to have a maximum combat radius of about 1400 km while the Gripen E is said to have a combat radius of 1500 km with 30 minutes on station time, which should give it a maximum combat radius of about 1700 km, and like pointed out above, the latter would, in that scenario, only have to fly at lower altitudes for a short duration. Yes that is in an air-to air configuration and the Gripen will suffer more from the addition of heavier and draggier air-to-ground ordnance but two BRU-61s with four SDBs or Spear IIIs each aren't that draggy or heavy.


You've made the mistake of taking Saab's claims for Gripen range/combat radius as credible, they aren't.

For a start, the Gripen E is 8,000 kg empty with a MTO of 16,500 kg, and the weight of full internal and external fuel alone is 7018 kg, bringing the empty + fuel weight to 15,018 kg, just 1482 kg shy of MTO.
With the weight of countermeasures, pilot, pylons and EFTs, there is no practical weight remaining for weapons.

Next, a Gripen E with 3x EFTs would be substantially draggier than a F-35 with internal carriage only, yet have only 7018 kg of fuel versus 8382 kg of fuel for the F-35A.
How exactly is the Gripen E going to have greater range with more drag and less fuel?



alphaxraylima wrote:4/5 most definitely, though the radar of a single F-35 will be more susceptible to jamming from another fighter compared to the radar of an AWACS, due to it having a higher frequency than most AWACS and such jammers are easier to fit inside a fighter. The range of the Meteor missile approaches 400 km in some situations, based on a study previously posted on this forum, and unlike fighter aircraft AWACS are neither fast nor very maneuverable. The Gravestone is just one of the radars employed with the S-400 and RCS is dependent on wave length, so while the F-35 is probably very good at avoiding the X-band Gravestone it will probably have a harder time against radars operating at lower bands. Indeed the AN/APY-9 equipped E-2D gives the USN such a capability against low observable targets.


Lower frequency radars are actually easier to jam due to having smaller operating bandwidth, provided the jammer is capable of jamming those frequencies.

And the difference between X-Band and low-band RCS for aircraft like the F-35 is unlikely to be more than 10-15 times greater RCS, as it was with the F-117.
Eg, the ranges the shot down F-117 over Yugoslavia was detected at by X-Band and VHF band radars suggest a 0.001 m^2 RCS vs X-Band and 0.01 to 0.03 m^2 RCS vs VHF band.

And ss I showed above, the F-35 can still get close to radars like the Vostok E to release SDBs, while the Gripen is detected within the entire engagement envelope of the 40N6.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1728
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post31 May 2019, 06:32

alphaxraylima wrote:1/2/3 Agreed VLO and EA are synergetic, no argument here. However, with even smaller munitions like the Spear III getting to the point of being able to be launched from stand-off ranges there is little need for the launch aircraft to get closer than the target being just inside the engagement envelope of said weapon, in this case around 140 km. If the Gravestone radar can detect the Gripen at about 180 km you would only need to take evasive action (EA, flying below the radar horizon and so on) during a, short, 40 km ingrees and egrees. At 140 km the horizon is at about 5000 ft, which isn't really that low anyway. And the usefullness of the 40N6 against highly maneuverable targets, like fighters, has been questioned

I think there are 3 issues with that assumption:
1- The detection range of Gravestone is greatly underestimated, Something like IRBIS-E can detect target with radar cross section of 3 m2 from 400 km, to assume Gravestone detection range against target with RCS = 1 m2 is only 180 km is ways too optimistic. Even APG-81 can detect a target with RCS = 1 m2 from as far as 269 km.
APG-81.PNG


2- Nap of the earth flight is only useable of your adversary don't have any fighters/interceptor flying combat air patrol, there is no AWACS. There is also a big risk from ground MANPADS and SHORAD.

3- You must know the location of the SAM beforehand for your tactics to work, and this isn't always the case. Unlike surface ship, surface to air batteries can hide them self pretty well and they don't emit constantly. If you were flying at 45.000 feet, suddenly they emit, detect and attack you, you may not have enough time to dive below radar horizon before the missile come.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 298
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post31 May 2019, 07:50

The major problem with claiming that the Gripen just needs to fly under the radar horizon is that it's an IADS. The countryside is littered with 2S6s, SA-18s, gaskins, gophers, giraffes, etc. Flying low just puts you in range of these systems and the sensor doesn't have to be the shooter.

The whole post is ridiculous. Someone is trying to talk tactics and doesn't actually know the tactics. They just read online that you can hide behind the horizon but have no clue what they are talking about because they're getting their information from other fanboys who are equally clueless.
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post31 May 2019, 10:33

eloise wrote:I think there are 3 issues with that assumption:
1- The detection range of Gravestone is greatly underestimated, Something like IRBIS-E can detect target with radar cross section of 3 m2 from 400 km, to assume Gravestone detection range against target with RCS = 1 m2 is only 180 km is ways too optimistic. Even APG-81 can detect a target with RCS = 1 m2 from as far as 269 km.


Yup, the 250 km vs 4 m^2 RCS was a low end figure I found from Aviation Week: https://aviationweek.com/electronic-war ... erformance
Full article here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Dragon029/comm ... chnologys/

I do think that figure is likely too low, but the only other figure I found is from ausairpower:
Image

130 nmi / 240 km vs 1 m^2 does sound more realistic
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 991
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post31 May 2019, 12:06

Neither of which should be considered a source.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6018
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post31 May 2019, 14:02

eloise wrote:Didn't Gripen NG has shorter combat radius than Rafale and F-18 and both have shorter combat radius than F-35 if all are on internal fuel?
Assuming you want to have 1500 km combat radius on Gripen, you will need 3 external fuel tanks at least, which harm both agility, acceleration, speed and RCS.
22.PNG

gripen.jpg


Hey look, its one of those "boom" moments I'm always talking about.

We know F-16s last longer than legacy Gripen,

and we know the F-18 Legacy does slightly better than F-16,

and the F-35A carries twice as much gas a legacy F-18... which means of course the Gripen E outranges them all!!

its just logical. they made a slide about it 10 years ago when they still had no idea what the Gripen NG specs were.

Image

First impressions are always spot on...


The simple fact is, the Gripen electronic suite is the only "mystery" of this whole bird. everything else is pretty much known right? seeing as the whole purpose is to keep it as physically close to the legacy Gripen as possible?

I don't know when it suddenly became so magical. Its a Gripen with more gas, two more pylons, and much improved avionics.

Image


We even know the performance of the airframe is degraded thanks to the additional weight out of proportion to the upgraded propulsion.
Choose Crews
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post31 May 2019, 15:05

alphaxraylima wrote:However, with even smaller munitions like the Spear III getting to the point of being able to be launched from stand-off ranges there is little need for the launch aircraft to get closer than the target being just inside the engagement envelope of said weapon, in this case around 140 km. If the Gravestone radar can detect the Gripen at about 180 km you would only need to take evasive action (EA, flying below the radar horizon and so on) during a, short, 40 km ingrees and egrees. At 140 km the horizon is at about 5000 ft, which isn't really that low anyway.

You're assuming the radar is either the target, or right next to it. IADS elements are often disbursed around potential targets with a heavier presence facing the more likely route of ingress, so your aircraft might need to get a lot closer (or even fly past) IADS elements to launch a even a standoff weapon at the actual target.

alphaxraylima wrote:Nothing, and that is a tactic that pretty much all modern fighter are likely employ. Though, the X-band radar in a fighter will be easier for other fighters to jam compared to pretty much all other radars due to size constraints (high frequency, usually X-band), and the fact that a lot of AESA radars (including the one on the Gripen E) can be used as high output jammers. The issue is further amplified (pun kind of intended) when a you have a flight of let's say four aircraft in both sides employing cooperative jamming techniques.

But this is where the flight of F-35s would have a huge advantage. If the Gripens are cooperative jamming the one F-35 radar that is emitting they are broadcasting their locations to the passive receivers of all the F-35s including those they don't even know are in the sky.
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post01 Jun 2019, 15:15

Apparently there's talk in Hungary about replacing the Gripen C/D lease with F-16 or F-35. Weirdly the main motivation seems to be Swedish establishment's constant mocking of Hungarian politics.

The latter part of the article chronicles bribe investigations in Brazil & Czech Rep, and is trying to guess how much this campaign of righteousness could cost to the Swedish taxpayers.

For now, let's just say that they aren't looking like a potential Gripen E/F customer. :roll:

http://www.friatider.se/ungern-redo-s-g ... iAKJPFdGCA
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests