F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

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

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1252
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post14 May 2020, 07:10

I know F'A about the C-390. Even so, I give it a better chance than the Gripen. It can't be worse than the A400, can it? So even the europeans might have a look.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 May 2020, 04:43

Corsair1963 wrote:The C-390 would make a perfect replacement for the C-130 Series. So, could this be an opportunity for Boeings rival Lockheed Martin??? Which, just so happens to be flush with cash!


https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 32.article


I wouldn't bet on that!

According to some people within the Portuguese Air Force that I personally spoke to (being Portugal the only country besides Brazil that so far ordered the KC-390), the Portuguese Air Force is not happy in having the KC-390 as the replacement of the its current C-130H fleet.
The main reason for this discontentment seems to be related with doubts around the KC-390 capability to operate from unpaved and unprepared runways in a sustained and frequent way. Worries are that those two turbofan engines with big air intakes will inevitably ingest lost of debris when operating from such runways which means that you can't either operate it in a sustained way (from such runways) when operating abroad such as it's currently happening with the Portuguese Air Force C-130H's on Central African Republic and as such that the Portuguese Air Force will be limited in the future to operate its tactical transports from paved and well prepared runways.
The C-130 obviously don't have the problem that I mentioned above with the KC-390 due to being Turbo-Prop with a much, much smaller air intakes plus a propeller in front of it which means that the likelihood of the C-130 engines ingesting debris when operating from unpaved and unprepared runways is very small.
Turbo-Prop engines also have other advantages when it comes to tactical airlifters.

And of course we all know that the strongest C-130 point is its capability to operate from unpaved and unprepared runways. So with the above, I doubt that the KC-390 will be a suitable replacement for the C-130!
IMO the only or biggest advantage that the KC-390 may have over the C-130 (namely the C-130J) is it's capability to fly higher and when flying higher to fly faster due again to the engines (turbofans) but then again this is a capability that you would expect from a Strategical airlifter as opposed to a Tactical airlifter. So, me thinks that the KC-390 is a "poor-man's" Strategical airlifter disguised as a Tactical airlifter while the A-400 is pretty much the opposite: a "rich-man's" Tactical airlifter disguised as a Strategical airlifter.


Anyway, the only reason why Portugal jumped on the KC-390 (again, so far the only country doing so besides Brazil) was purely political: Parts of the aircraft (KC-390) are made in Portugal (in a factory that Embraer has in the city of Évora) and also due to an investment made by the Portuguese government in the KC-390 program.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post27 May 2020, 08:04

Saab receives serial production order for Gripen E to Sweden
GRIPEN GRIPEN SWEDEN GRIPEN DENMARK PRESS RELEASE

18 December 2013

Defence and security company Saab has, within the framework of a previously signed agreement with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for Gripen E, received a serial production order amounting to SEK16, 4 billion for operations during 2013-2026. The order includes modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E for Sweden with initial deliveries in 2018

“The order from FMV is further proof of the Swedish Parliament’s confidence in Gripen, its development potential and defence capacity. Furthermore, it is confirmation that the programme is proceeding according to plan," says Saab’s president and CEO Håkan Buskhe.

FMV has today placed an order for modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E with initial deliveries in 2018. This is the third order under the agreement with FMV for Gripen E that was made public on 15 February 2013. Other orders within the agreement are as follows:

Development of Gripen E to Sweden during 2013-2023 – orders received on 15 February and on 22 March 2013.
Mission-specific equipment and support and maintenance for Gripen E to Sweden, and;
Delivery of 22 new Gripen E, and related equipment to Switzerland, if Switzerland decides to acquire Gripen E. During August and September 2013 both chambers of the Swiss Parliament voted yes to the procurement of Gripen E and a referendum on the procurement is expected in 2014.

Orders under the agreement are booked when each order is received and the remaining orders are expected in 2014.


https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/ ... to-sweden/


classic.
Choose Crews
Offline

lipovitand

Newbie

Newbie

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

Unread post30 May 2020, 10:53

Just want to summarize Gripen E as I understand it. Please feel free to add,


Its supposed toe be cheap at $85 million but doesnt includes alot of things compare to a cheaper jet (F35)

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

Its supposed to be easy to maintain relatively. But they dont explain how.

800m runway takeoff and landing. Cool

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

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

Quote some guy on Quora and use it as info.

Is on schedule but no jets are on service.

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

First flight 2017, first flight for Brazil 2019.

Am I missing anything? I kind of want to make a Gripen E comprehensive facts that is not just blanket statement. Seems everyone praises it but no one is lining up to buy.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24491
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 May 2020, 10:58

WHO? "...Seems everyone praises it..." :?:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

lipovitand

Newbie

Newbie

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

Unread post30 May 2020, 19:56

spazsinbad wrote:WHO? "...Seems everyone praises it..." :?:


bloggers, articles, mainly the internet. The only place that tear the Gripen E apart is here. Other than that, its crickets.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 383
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post30 May 2020, 21:15

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.
Last edited by kimjongnumbaun on 31 May 2020, 05:43, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

lipovitand

Newbie

Newbie

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

Unread post30 May 2020, 22:35

Had the same doubts about it. Im trying hard to find issues they are running into and I can not find it. Must be an ultra secret project.


Regarding F18, I think they went with EDE instead of EPE but thats another topic.
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 350
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post31 May 2020, 01:04

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 feel bad for the F414. The poor engine has to power the FCS radar, the computer, and then get taxed by jamming antenna putting out enough energy to jam larger radars, and still lug like 3000lbs, and then try to maneuver with it all, while sipping gas.

It's cruelty, really.
Attachments
more_faster.png
more! faster!
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2688
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post31 May 2020, 02:03

So you go F414EPE, if it existed. Now you burn fuel faster to unleash that MOAR POW!-ER. You can go less distance at maximum power, but at least you do it faster. So if you'd need to increase your fuel fraction by altering the airframe, why not at that point go for a bigger core engine to grow it across the board?
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 383
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post31 May 2020, 05:39

madrat wrote:So you go F414EPE, if it existed. Now you burn fuel faster to unleash that MOAR POW!-ER. You can go less distance at maximum power, but at least you do it faster. So if you'd need to increase your fuel fraction by altering the airframe, why not at that point go for a bigger core engine to grow it across the board?


You mean redesign the Gripen C into the Gripen E? Or design a completely new plane? Or just buy an F-16 or F-35? :D
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post31 May 2020, 07:40

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


we don't even technically know what the original cost in actual service because its a secret. In the world famous Janes study they got every other aircraft wrong. USAF says F-16 is about 25,000 an hour CPFH. They said i was 8000. One has to wonder how they botched it that badly to miss around 70 percent of the cost... geewhiz, you don't think they did the same with their airplane?

Its supposed to be easy to maintain relatively. But they dont explain how.


South Africa tells an interesting tale:


n her response, Mapisa-Nqakula stated that 13 fighter aircraft are in the Rotational Preventative Maintenance programme out of a fleet of 26 aircraft “which are maintained throughout the aircraft life cycle as prescribed by the Designing Authority”, which is Swedish manufacturer Saab.

She stated the Gripen fleet is under continuous maintenance while in the Rotational Preventative Maintenance programme while 13 Gripens are operationally active at their home bases. “The Gripen aircraft are operationally utilised and used for force preparation of Gripen specific pilots and also for force employment,” the Minister said in her reply.

News of Gripens in rotational storage first emerged in March 2013 when the minister said 12 were in storage. The South African Air Force later said the South African Air Force’s (SAAF’s) 2 Squadron at Air Force Base Makhado would fly the Gripen fleet in rotation, with some aircraft being put in short-term storage between flying cycles in order to minimise the risk of corrosion. Flying hours would thus be spread evenly across the entire Gripen fleet.

Military analyst Darren Olivier noted that “Rotational Preventative Maintenance (RPM) is a smart and effective approach to take when an air force is under severe budgetary pressure, as the SAAF has been for a number of years. It’s based on the best engineering and logistical principles and, unlike mothballing or long-term storage, it means that aircraft are kept semi-active and flown every 60 days, are maintained and upgraded to the same level as active aircraft and can return to the active flight line within no more than two days. Most importantly, the aircraft in the RPM programme are periodically rotated out with the aircraft on the active flight line, so that all aircraft are used and the flying hours remain even across the fleet.

“It is of course disastrous that the SAAF has had to adopt such severe austerity measures, that it’s forced to limit the number of active pilots and aircraft to stay within its extremely low number of allocated flying hours and that the government still refuses to fund it to a level that matches the demands placed on it. But given the prevailing conditions, adopting the RPM approach was the best possible option the SAAF could have taken to ensure that it does not lose important capabilities over the longer term.

“RPM is not an effective long-term strategy, it’s meant only as a short-term (1-3 year) intervention. But given the low probability of a suitable increase in the SAAF’s operating budget, it’s likely that the RPM programme will have to be continued for longer than initially thought.

“Unless the SAAF’s budget is increased significantly within the next couple of years, the organisation will be forced to continue scaling back its level of flying and the number of aircraft available for day-to-day missions and may, in a few years, even be forced to close squadrons and retire certain types. It’s time the government stops dithering and either re-allocates money from other departments to the SAAF or dramatically reduces the level of operational commitments, including VIP flights, that the organisation is expected to fulfil.”

Already in 2010 there was great concern that a lack of money would ground the Gripen. Then-defence minister Lindiwe Sisulu warned that the Gripens could be mothballed if the military failed to get hold of extra funding. In its 2010/2011 report, the Department of Defence said that due to underfunding, the number of flight hours per Gripen aircrew member was reduced from 224 to 110 per year.

https://www.defenceweb.co.za/aerospace/ ... l-storage/

now to be fair, this is south africa. There are budget (and other issues we wont get into)

HOWEVER. I was always assured, that these airplanes could operate on a shoestring budget with novices and conscripts. South Africa, should be just fine despite budget issues right? isn't that the Reason you buy Gripen? limited budget? :mrgreen: and already in 2010, they realized theyd need additional funding? how strange! And then the next year they cut hours by over 50 percent?!

pretty crazy how so many Gripen Export nations always regress to the norm of about a dozen aircraft. Surely thats a wacky coincidence. Before the mothballing South Africa had the largest fleet. but that was culled within just a year or two. Hell they had 18 of 26 delivered by april of 2011. And news broke of twelve being stored by march 2013? South Africa was the largest export customer of the legacy Gripen, but like Hungary, Cz Rep, and Thailand, about 12 or so ends up being the compliment. Which is extra funny because its low cost is supposed to lead to a larger fleet according to the fans...

800m runway takeoff and landing. Cool


Another arbitrary measurement with no details to give it any value.

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


LOL classic.

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


Another false phrase they use constantly that isnt the truth. Its right there next to the 4700 an hour :doh:


Is on schedule but no jets are on service.


Its going to be in service with Sweden who signed the contract in 2013, by 2023. It was always supposed to take 10 years. :mrgreen: except for when they signed that contract and it was supposed to take 5 years. :mrgreen:

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


Theres rumor or incidences where the original could super cruise. As with everything gripen. Details are scarce, and conjecture is plentiful


Am I missing anything? I kind of want to make a Gripen E comprehensive facts that is not just blanket statement. Seems everyone praises it but no one is lining up to buy.


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.
Choose Crews
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post31 May 2020, 21:12

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
lipovitand wrote: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.


No, C uses F404 and E uses F414.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Jun 2020, 02:35

hkultala wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
lipovitand wrote: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.


No, C uses F404 and E uses F414.


I think he meant "same thrust" [to weight Ratio]--they're about similar in terms of E's heavier weight vs the F414 improvement in thrust.
Choose Crews
Offline

lipovitand

Newbie

Newbie

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

Unread post01 Jun 2020, 16:53

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?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests