Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

wjtk wrote:

Main reason of succes was higher detection of our planes. Similar score was achieved against Finnish F-18".
Thats it..

Sure, air combat is never black and white. There are many variables. But I still find it strange that the Gripens were unaware of the F-16's presence, if they were to use their TIDLS, EWS39 and PS-05. They should have been given ample warning if this was the case. The report was very vague, but I'm guessing(again) that the ROE played a part here. Perhaps a similar scenario as the Hungarians in Spring Flag. They were the Red force with no BVR missiles, support or radars.

F-16.net Sponsor

Czech pilot "Woody" writes about a normal day during Nato Tiger Meet.

Such as how he successfully finds a target in a jammed environment and later when a Swiss F-18 is knocked down by one of his AMRAAM's...

Thanks to Signatory at mp.net.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.211squadron.cz%2Fletka%2Fntm09.html&sl=auto&tl=en

Well this thread was a good way to pass an hour or so!
Some interesting comments and facts banded about but I still am of the opinion that in terms of energy, weapons, radar and general A-A ability the F-16 still comes out on top. Gripen seems to have some nice gimmicks such as the much vaunted road take offs but i do wonder just how badly the sortie rate would suffer and just how easy it would be to keep these road bases from being attacked when considering how advanced A-G radars are these days. In other words i don't think any road base would go unnoticed for long.
The whole "world leading TIDLS" that the Gripen has seems to be based more on marketing and one does wonder why no-one else is clamouring to buy it. Must say on the maintenence front it appears good, but as others have pointed out the aircraft are still very fresh so how it will look 10 years down the road is anyones guess.
Also it seems Gripen takes a leaf out of European designed fighters in that to perform as advertised it needs a good 10 to 15 years from its entry into service to be upgraded with AESA's, CFT's, TVC etc etc not to mention the Mythical Meteor missile which i notice has once more been touted as the game changer. A game changer which may well still be 7 to 12 years away! Good luck if you get attacked in the meantime!

All in all its a nice jet but it seems vastly overhyped by the same Swedish nationalists who manage to get around many different forums all declaring it a world beater (in the face of evidence to the contary as we have seen here in this thread) I personally wouldn't mind betting many of its proponents are employee's of SAAB...

Well, I may be swedish but I have no affiliation with SAAB whatsoever. I did serve in the swedish air force as a conscript though. I was one of the first conscripts who recieved any education on the Gripen even if I worked mostly with it´s predecessor. Now, that don´t in any way make me an expert on any ac, I did however get a decent insight in how the Swedish air force was supposed to function in time of war.

What many fail to realize is that even if the F-16 and the Gripen looks quite similar in many aspects on paper they where, in the beginning, two very different beasts. The F-16 was, as most of you know conceived, as the light weight fighter, a more or less dedicated dogfighter, later on it evolved into what is probably the most successful multi-role fighter the world has ever seen but that was very much not the case when Swedens new fighter programme was initiated back in the early eighties.

Sweden was and still remain a neutral, non-aligned country. It was a very real possibility that we´d have to fight the russians alone and could never hope to achieve even air-parity. We´d have to fight a defensive war and try to survive for as long as we could, part of that was to make sure they wouldn´t be able to wipe out our entire air force in the first days. Therefore it was decided to build very different air bases. Had we built american or for that matter russian style airbases they would, in all probability, be taken out day one leaving us with effectively no airforce. Instead it was decided to spread them out. A swedish air base could have as many as ten "runways" and literally hundreds of "parkingspots" for aircraft. Mobile "troop's" with all the equipment needed to turn around an aircraft were trained and equipped. Everything to make sure that we could at least pose some threat in the air for as long as possible. Very little of this would have been possible with any non-swedish aircraft at that time, except the Harrier I suppose. Remember, back in those days precision guided munitions where still unheard of, doubt if the russians have large stocks of them even today. The war in Georgia suggests they don´t.

As for the turnaround-times. I don´t know about the Gripen but on the Viggen 10 minutes were common for A-A missions, 15 for strike, and 20 was unheard of. Suppose the Gripen would take a bit more time with the two extra pylons. This was in the field and with a group of conscripts with a regular serviceman as supervisor. More extensive overhaul where done by regulars but almost all of it could be done in the field.

As for the maintenance and the weapons, it was in the requirement that it should be cheaper than it's predecessor to operate and maintain. How well they did on those points and compared to the Viper I suppose is anyone's guess. Fifteen years ago all swedish fighters could carry sidewinders and amraams. I only remember the Swedish designation so I don´t know which version of said missiles we had but it still suggests the Gripen today would be well suited to carry the latest versions too even if there is a need to upgrade the software. Don´t even know if there is a derivative of the sidewinder around though?

In short, the Gripen do what it was supposed to. Unfortunately for it, the world turned and it found itself between a rock (viper) and a hard place (F-35) on a market where it was probably never meant to be. It is a versatile fighter that could cause problems for any opponent it´s likely to face. The most amazing thing is probably the fact that it was built by a country roughly the same size as California and with a population of 9 million.

Regards

shep1978 wrote:

Well this thread was a good way to pass an hour or so!
Some interesting comments and facts banded about but I still am of the opinion that in terms of energy, weapons, radar and general A-A ability the F-16 still comes out on top. Gripen seems to have some nice gimmicks such as the much vaunted road take offs but i do wonder just how badly the sortie rate would suffer and just how easy it would be to keep these road bases from being attacked when considering how advanced A-G radars are these days. In other words i don't think any road base would go unnoticed for long.
The whole "world leading TIDLS" that the Gripen has seems to be based more on marketing and one does wonder why no-one else is clamouring to buy it. Must say on the maintenence front it appears good, but as others have pointed out the aircraft are still very fresh so how it will look 10 years down the road is anyones guess.
Also it seems Gripen takes a leaf out of European designed fighters in that to perform as advertised it needs a good 10 to 15 years from its entry into service to be upgraded with AESA's, CFT's, TVC etc etc not to mention the Mythical Meteor missile which i notice has once more been touted as the game changer. A game changer which may well still be 7 to 12 years away! Good luck if you get attacked in the meantime!

All in all its a nice jet but it seems vastly overhyped by the same Swedish nationalists who manage to get around many different forums all declaring it a world beater (in the face of evidence to the contary as we have seen here in this thread) I personally wouldn't mind betting many of its proponents are employee's of SAAB...

F-16 has been a "world beater" for many years. In some areas F-16 is "more capable" than Gripen; in other areas Gripen has some advantages (like lower RCS, lower IR signature). It's also a question which F-16 you are talking about. Seems to me current Gripen is comparing well in a2a with the current F-16 block 50-52, whereas block 60 would be a step ahead of Gripen C/D; Gripen NG being developed would add many of the "goodies" that you mention that would bring Gripen up to speed.

Gripen has the same a2a weapons as F-16, so I don't see the big difference there? "Energy" is less important than it used to be; it's more about situational awareness. MMI of Gripen seems more modern and better than most F-16 variants (although I don't know much about the block 60 MMI).

And to the extent it is important, difference between F-16 is not that big; RM12 is weaker than F-16 engines however the a/c is also much lighter.

I agree Gripen is not on the level of Typhoon and Rafale or SH, however it is always possible to underestimate, and it seems that's what you are doing.

Gripen NG was the preferred plane of Brazilian Air Force, ahead of both SH and Rafale. So it met all technical requirements, and was cheaper. It may lose, because of politics.

Had it been so weak don't you think the Brazilian airforce would have but it a bit lower on the list, perhaps behind SH? They did not.

And do you really think the Saab employees pose as "Gripen fanboys" on the internet? The Saab employees I am aware of that participate on forums certainly never showed any "fanboyism".

wjtk wrote:

Article was about Polish squadron not about F-16 vs JAS-39. Author mentioned this episode only in few words like "Pilots from 10th squadron took part in Loyal Arrow exercies 2009 where they met with Swedish JAS-39. Score was 4:0 on our pilots favour. Main reason of succes was higher detection of our planes. Similar score was achieved against Finnish F-18".
Thats it.
I want to notice that i'm not judging about completly F-16 superiority. I just want to show that air fight is much more complicated thing than tables, numbers, theory etc. This time Poles were lucky - other day lucky were JAS-39 pilots. Many depends from pilots, tactics etc.

That's news too me:)

The Swedish radar is superior my friend, even when we considered buying American instead of building a new fighter we knew we were going to keep the Swedish radar concept. F-16 radar better, built on what? Aviation weekly? And you can't even source it for us??

Not impressive..

---
Views from South Africa..

"Gripen is pretty much as agile it can get. G onset rate at least 6 G/s (1-9 G in 1.2 s), the Gripen platform is designed with tactics in mind. Gripen fight not only with missiles and bullets but with information, superior situation awareness is the key in modern warfare..

Gripens flight computer is outstanding, and can make some worldclass calculations. Gripens Fedec are highly impressive, it even has a backup mechanical calculation system. something only a handful of companies can manage. The air craft also incorporate a very low radar profile making it hard to find. And it has a superior data link. And in real tests against other aircrafts the radar has been found very hard to jam by other systems, meaning that it will work in practice, not only in theory. And those country's using it have found it working in all weathers.

The radar is capable of detecting, locating, identifying and automatically tracking multiple targets in the upper and lower spheres, on the ground and sea or in the air, in all weather conditions. It can guide four air to air missiles (AMRAAM, MBDA Meteor) simultaneously at four different targets. "

The Czech Air Force had this to say after testing the first generation Gripen 2005.

"Sweden required hard discretion related to ALL Gripen abilities information, but rumors say Gripen pilots used to call fox 3 (AMRAAM engagement) farther away than viper guys. When reporters asked guys from AFB Caslav to compare our new birds with another, they answered our fighters (model C block2) are the best HW currently available on the word market."

And also

"Since 1 May we have flown over 570 missions in total [figures as of mid-October] and since 1 July when were went operational on the QRA mission we have flown over 300 missions. We are very busy and we’re flying every day. Every aircraft flies at least twice, each day. We have eight pilots at the moment and sometimes we have all eight flying – and it’s not unusual to have all 12 aircraft operational and available on the line. We have never lost a single operational mission due to a technical snag with the aircraft and every single QRA mission has gone ahead as planned."
---

Ericsson’s future airborne radar is Not Only a Radar, NORA (for the NG), but also a complete electronic warfare system including jamming and data communication. The new radar will use an Active Electronically Scanned Array, AESA, built up with approximately 1000 individual transmit/receive modules. The antenna, mounted on a single-axis platform, will give well over 200? coverage in azimuth. NORA will offer superior performance by virtue of a number of core capabilities at Ericsson – beam agility, beam widening, multi-channel processing, target-specific waveforms and low radar cross-section.....

It's planned to scan +-60 deg electronically and 60 deg mechanically in azimut, permitting scanning over a 240 deg arc and electronically +-60 deg up and downwards. ...

Fully programmable signal and data processors enable the radar to handle these air defence, attack and reconnaissance missions. This also gives the radar a very high growth potential to meet future requirements. The radars flexible waveforms make it possible to avoid ambiguities and allow performance characteristics to be optimized for all operating modes. The radar also matches the data link requirements for advanced medium range missiles...Ericsson has started development work for upgrading the PS05/A multimode radar. Some of the up-grades have been possible to incorporate, since new, faster and more powerful processors and components have become available on the market. An essential part of these upgrades is a new data processor who will replace the D80 processor in the Systems Computer in Swedish Air Force Gripens. It is a Modular Airborne Computer System (MACS) with higher capacity. A significant upgrade of the signal processor is also included which will dramatically enhance functions in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions....

Ericsson AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) is a new airborne radar project currently in development at Ericsson Microwave Systems. The AESA technology will improve the radars overall performance drastically, especially its target detection and tracking capability. Beam direction can be changed instantaneously, detection range will be considerably increased, and jamming suppression further improved. The AESA radar will feature multibeam capability with all beams individually and simultaneously controlled. It can also operate simultaneously as a fire control and obstacle warning radar, and be used both in intercept and ground attack missions. The multibeam concept also allows for radar operation, data linking, radar warning and jamming simultaneously. As a consequence of the very large number of transmitter and receiver modules, the radar will have a high system availability through graceful degradation...."

----------End Quotes-------------------

That some Nato countries won't buy little Sweden's Gripen has very little to do with its capabilities. Much more to do with logistics, and who needs to 'take care' of who, and 'don't sh* on your doorstep' :)

At the same time I don't think those that use it are that disappointed. When you want to make a 'kill' it's your radar and your weapon equipment that will count, combined with 'invisibility'. Gripen has those three plus an ability alike the Russian to assemble new parts very quickly, and sturdiness allowing it to land at small roads, hide and come up extremely quickly..

The Gripen can operate from 800m long and 9m wide road-strips. Take off and landing distances can be down to 400-350 meters.

-----------Quote------------------------

Radar (JAS-39): 20% longer than RDY (M2000-5), and 40% longer than the AN/APG-68 for F-16C/D Block40/42.

7. While combating with the basic type of MIG-29 (MIG-29G??) in BVR engagement:

* JAS-39A: the effective range for Gripen to detect MIG-29 is 60 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen.

* F-16C/D: the effective range for Falcon to detect MIG-29 is 5 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Falcon.

8. Maintenance of GRIPEN:
* The MTBF for JAS-39A is 7.6 flight hours, and the SAAB declared that the MTBF for the USAF?s frontline fighters (except F/A-22 perhaps) is no more than 4.1 flight hours.

* The man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour: 12 man-hours initially, than reduced to 10 man-hours (F/A-18 E/F: 15 man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour).

* The charge for each flight-hour: 2,500 USD initially, than reduced to 2,000 USD.

----------------------------Quote------------------------------
Foreign alternatives

The F-16 was studied and was found to basically be able to fulfill the ground attack requirement, the emphasis being on beating back a sea borne invasion with anti-ship missiles. On the other hand, as an interceptor it would just barely do, as in 1980 it took 3 minutes to start an F-16, while the requirement for Swedish fighters is that they are airborne after 60 s from a start order.

Also the F-18 satisfied the ground attack requirement and perhaps also fitted the Swedish profile with dispersed bases somewhat better.

In both cases, they were primarily intended to replace AJ/S 37 Viggens in the middle 1990's, with most likely another fighter bought to replace the JA 37 Viggens a decade or more later.

Shortly thereafter, it was shown that it would be possible to, for less money (comparing to F-18 and assuming a number of 240 or more airframes) develop a true multi role fighter, which eventually could replace all Viggen versions; And Gripen was born.

-----End of quotes--

We have one of the sweetest little mosquitoes you ever will be killed by :)
And we're not interested in speed records, we use 'invisibility' aka, a very low natural radarprofile (small plane:), good tactics, fast missiles, and a superior radar and data link to achieve that. We built it differently than the American 'Deathstar' concept with its centralized steering mechanism. Ours was 'peer to peer' fifteen years ago, and we've constantly gotten better on that too..

--Quote---

TIDLS (datalink)

One Gripen can provide radar sensing for four of its colleagues, allowing a single fighter to track a target, while the others use the data for a stealthy attack. TIDLS also permits multiple fighters to quickly and accurately lock onto a target's track through triangulation from several radars; or allows one fighter to jam a target while another tracks it; or allows multiple fighters to use different radar frequencies collaboratively to "burn through" jamming transmissions. TIDLS also gives the Gripen transparent access to the SAAB-Ericsson 340B Erieye "mini-AWACs" aircraft, as well as the overall ground command and control system. This system provides Sweden with an impressive defensive capability at a cost that, though still high, is less than that of comparable systems elsewhere.

TIDLS can connect up to four aircraft in a full-time two-way link. It has a range of 500 km and is highly resistant to jamming; almost the only way to jam the system is to position a jammer aircraft directly between the two communicating Gripens. Its basic modes include the ability to display the position, bearing, and speed of all four aircraft in a formation, including basic status information such as fuel and weapons state. The TIDLS is fundamentally different from broadcast-style links like Link 16. It serves fewer users but links them more closely together, exchanging much more data, and operating much closer to real time.

TIDLS information, along with radar, EW, and mapping data, appears on the central MFD. The display reflects complete sensor fusion: a target that is being tracked by multiple sources is one target on the screen. Detailed symbols distinguish between friendlies, hostiles, and unidentified targets and show who has targeted whom.

Today, Sweden is the only country that is flying with a link of this kind.
The Flygvapnet has already proven some of the tactical advantages of the link, including the ability to spread the formation over a much wider area. Visual contact between the fighters is no longer necessary, because the datalink shows the position of each aircraft. Leader and wingman roles are different: the pilot in the best position makes the attack, and the fact that he has targeted the enemy is immediately communicated to the three other aircraft.

A basic use of the datalink is "silent attack." An adversary may be aware that he is being tracked by a fighter radar that is outside missile range. He may not be aware that another, closer fighter is receiving that tracking data and is preparing for a missile launch without using its own radar. After launch, the shooter can break and escape, while the other fighter continues to pass tracking data to the missile. In tests, Gripen pilots have learned that this makes it possible to delay using the AMRAAM's active seeker until it is too late for the target to respond.

But the use of the link goes beyond this, towards what the Swedish Air Force calls "samverkan," or close-cooperation. One example is the use of the Ericsson PS-05/A radar with TIDLS. An Ericsson paper compares its application, with identical sensors and precise knowledge of the location of both platforms, to human twins: "Communication is possible without explaining everything."

"Radar-samverkan," the Ericsson paper suggests, equips the formation with a super-radar of extraordinary capabilities. 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. The target's signals will often identify it as well.

The datalink results in better tracking. Usually, three plots (echoes) are needed to track a target in track-while-scan mode. The datalink allows the radars to share plots, not just tracks, so even if none of the aircraft in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively.

Each radar plot includes Doppler velocity, which provides the individual aircraft with range-rate data. However, this data on its own does not yield the velocity of the target. Using the TIDLS, two fighters can take simultaneous range-rate readings and thereby determine the target's track instantly, reducing the need for radar transmission.

In ECM applications, one fighter can search, while the wingman simultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the radar. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the radar that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique is for all four radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies.'

--End of quote--

Our Swedish Data-link updates every second (or faster:), as compared to Link16 (every twelfth second) This makes it possible for us to fly 'radar silent' and even shoot its missiles from it without any own radar. And the data-link is able to steer you in, in every detail (close control) through its data commands. Which means that Gripen will be very operational even with its radio totally jammed. The NATO variant Link16 can, if I'm correct, open up to four(?) 'timeslots/channels' and if you place them correctly in time, give you a update every third second. (But we can also do that kind of stuff and as our systems each update every second by themselves (or faster:) you might wonder how much info we would be able to transmit that 'NATO' way opening new 'timeslots'. Not that I know of course, just guessing here:)

Our system have the possibility to use AWACS and satellites and 'peer2peer'. It seems to me that Link16 first handedly is a 'centralized' system, now also trying to in cooperate some of the Swedish 'ideas'. As for what is best in a battle situation? I prefer the one with the most options myself, and that's not Link16. And it's not only Gripen using our system, it's used in all types of military vehicles, that's why it is so redundant.

And that's why we still will have a 3-D sphere of information, even when all AWACS is down.

We use all available radar, and their data links too. But remember, ours system is 'peer to peer', just like the Internet, built for durability.

Btw : I saw defenseindustrydaily state "To date, the F-22 is the only operational aircraft capable of supercruise while carrying weapons. "
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22 ... ted-02908/

sorry, we did it, before that (from 2001:)

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE46 ... 001_01.pdf
"There was one interesting problem,” Colonel Eldh concludes with a smile. “Gripen is supersonic at all altitudes and can cruise supersonically with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two sidewinder missiles without the need to engage the afterburner. In the early days of operations, we found some pilots inadvertently flying supersonic over populated areas. The problem was one of habit, as these pilots had their throttle settings as high as on the older-generation fighters that Gripen replaced. “It is fair to say there were a few startled people on the ground, as their day-to-day work, or perhaps sleep, was disturbed by unexpected sonic booms! It was, of course, a simple task to solve the problem – the throttles were re-set and everyone was happy." And no, no afterburners, please reread the text if you thought so. It's quite clear it came as a surprise.

Last edited by yor_on on Mar 04, 2010 - 09:41 PM; edited 2 times in total

Done and gone:)

yor_on wrote:

The Swedish radar is superior my friend

Prove it (I'm talking about block 52+ radar).

Quote:

Radar (JAS-39): 20% longer than RDY (M2000-5), and 40% longer than the AN/APG-68 for F-16C/D Block40/42.

So we are talking about APG68(v)1.

Since then, range was increased in versions V5, V7 and now in V9 (las upgrade +33% range). Tell me - where is this Gripen's radar superiority?

Quote:

Btw : I saw defenseindustrydaily state "To date, the F-22 is the only operational aircraft capable of supercruise while carrying weapons. "

That's not supercruise. Even F-16 can do over Mach 1 without AB.

"Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of an aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently and without the use of afterburners ("reheat")."

Didn't you know?

Those quotes are old my friend, doesn't change the facts. Gripen is really cool :)
And hot too.

Take a look.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... ostcount=1

yor_on wrote:

"Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of an aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently and without the use of afterburners ("reheat")."

Didn't you know?

USAF defined supercruise as a flight with a speed of 1,5+ Ma.

Flying just over Mach 1 without AB is not so uncommon. As I said - even the F-16 can do it.

Well my friend, USAF may define it after their engines :)
But it seems we were there first? Not really caring for it, as it wasn't that interesting to us, just a proof of a truly good design from the ground up. 39 is an interceptor, not a long distance racer :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise defines it a little different from USAF.

Just want to tell an anecdote that I heard in the military about our old Draken. (The first airplane with a data link, super secret at that time:) this guy told me "There wasn't anybody that could say how fast Draken was, with its afterburner on it just kept accelerating until it ran out of fuel " :)
On the other hand? Don't know how long that would sustain the aircraft on a constant afterburner? Minutes?
But it was a cool craft, as Viggen was too.

yor_on wrote:

Well my friend, USAF may define it after their engines Smile

A lot of aircrafts can actually 'supercruise' (can sustain speed over Mach 1 without AB). But the real supercuise ability referes to something that sets you appart from the crowd - ability to sustain much higher speed than Mach 1 without AB (otherwise almost every modern fighter plane should be described as a 'supercruiser').

yor_on wrote:

But it seems we were there first?

No, you're (as usual Wink

) wrong. The first supercruiser was: English Electric Lightning. First flight 1954.

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 versus Saab Gripen