Is the Gripen better than the F-16 for Ukraine?

Remains to be seen how is best for Ukraine to defeat the Mig 31 and its R37. Can the Meteor do it? Would we risk Ukrainians shooting missiles inside Russian territory to risk of said missile being captured like happened with China grabbing Taiwan's heat seekers?

We Americans have our own problems. There is not some endless flow of cash in this country as others seem to think.

Of course you have. As everyone else have their own problems.
And of course that yes, I agree that the US doesn't have and endless flow of cash. However that flow of cash (one could call it GDP for instance) is much bigger compared to European countries and together with being the world's leading superpower means that the USA has more military equipment and factories to build it and thus is in a much better position to provide military equipment to Ukraine.


-Where are these factories at, have you ever been to the American midwest? Due to NAFTA and the like, American manufacturing has contracted on the order of 30%. Have you seen the endless empty decaying factories in Detroit or Toledo, I'm guessing probably not. And no we are not in a much better position to provide military equipment to Ukraine, let the Euros provide their hardware so the US taxpayer doesn't get the bill as it basically has since 1945 for the defense of Western Europe.

I don't know how many hornets Australia has remaining, if they have some sure then they can provide the support and maintenance to Ukraine. Yet I don't see them raising their hands?

You don't see them (Australians) raising their hands for the same reason you don't see anyone else including the USA raising their hands when it comes to offer/supply western fighter aircraft to Ukraine. This is very unfortunate but the truth is that no-one in the west wants to do this.

Regarding the numbers of Australian Legacy Hornet, 71 were ordered, 4 were lost in accidents and 25 were sold to Canada (I previously stated wrongfully, 18) which means that Australia should have 42 Legacy Hornet in storage. Again and this alone should be more than any number of Gripens available worldwide (to eventually supply Ukraine).

The idea of taking USMC Hornets, again very old hard to maintain airframes, giving them to Ukraine and then some expecting us to support and maintain them is not going to happen. Again, it is another bill put on the American taxpayer.

USMC Legacy Hornets may not be that old as you think. At least some of them aren't for sure. For example the last F/A-18D manufactured was built in 2000 and this (last) aircraft was delivered precisely to the USMC. The first F/A-18C was built in 1987. I think it's safe to assume that the Legacy Hornet currently left in service with the USMC are the most recent ones so we're certainly talking about Legacy Hornets manufactured in the 1990's and most likely ones built in the late 1990's. As such we are talking about Legacy Hornet which shouldn't be older or much older than for example Gripen C's.
On top of this, I think that USMC Legacy Hornet received some sort of a MLU in the meanwhile.


-It is well documented that USMC Hornets are having their share of structural longevity issues. In addition the idea of passing them on to Ukraine, a country that most likely cannot afford the cost to operate them; And then worrying about some of their electronics ending up in a country nearly 4000 miles to the east. Yeah, not going to happen.

I think the best option is that the Europeans fund/support/field their military hardware for Ukraine. The MLU operators are getting F-35's so let them donate those jets to Ukrainian AF. I really would like to see it, however, probably not going to happen.

As stated above, the sad truth is that no-one in the West or NATO wants to give western fighter aircraft to Ukraine with the fear of escalating tensions with Russia. Not even the USA wants to do this.
But to be honest, European countries have also been supplying Ukraine will all sorts of other military equipment such as Gepard, Stormer, Stinger, Starstreak, HAWK, etc... Anti-Air Systems, NLAW, Panzerfaust 3, etc... Anti-tank weapons, M-113, VAB, etc... armored vehicles, CAESAR, PzH 2000, M109, M270, etc... self-propelled artillery systems, etc...
And the above is only the western build equipment. Not counting the equipment from Soviet/Russian origin such as T-72s, S-300s or even Mig-29s, etc... which was supplied by (eastern) European countries to Ukraine.

Perhaps for the last few decades, the Euros should not have neglected their militaries in favor of endless social programs. A summation of bad choices which it seems like they are paying for now.

I don't wish to dwell into politics that much but it's not a matter of military spending versus social programs.
Both are needed, the military spending is to defend against external threats while the social programs are to "defend" against internal threats. For instance in the USA you have lots of social problems (which Europe doesn't have or have in a much lesser degree) in great or most part because of the lack of social programs (which are exactly meant to deal with social problems).
IMO, both North American (USA and Canada) and European countries are resourceful (rich) and if well managed they can spend the necessary money/resources in both in defence and social programs without one "eating" the budget of the other.
The problem is that most of these (and our) countries aren't that well managed but that's another and totally off-topic subject...

-I do not wish to dwell into politics also. But the fact remains since basically 1945 western Europe has generally had a free ride for their defense. It is now time for Copenhagen, Brussels, Oslo, and the like.... to reallocate/realign their institutional funding. (I will believe it when I see it)

So as you say "For instance in the USA you have lots of social problems in great or most part because of the lack of soical programs." Would you care to elaborate on this?

And if we do have such problems, then maybe if we didn't spend so much on defense and military bases within Europe/ European defense in general we could re-allocate such funds for our own peoples' welfare. Many Americans are for that including myself.



Back to original topic. The best jet for UAF is the European MLU, if not the MLU then Gripen.

Remains to be seen how is best for Ukraine to defeat the Mig 31 and its R37. Can the Meteor do it?

My 2 cents:
IMO, both the Meteor and even the AIM-120D should suffice against Russian fighter aircraft like the Mig-31 armed R-37M. While technically or in theory the R-37M "outranges" the AIM-120D and even the Meteor, the R-37M is a very large missile with somehow limited agility so while it's theoretical maximum range is larger, it's NEZ (No Escape Zone) against fast and agile fighter aircraft should be smaller (than AIM-120D and Meteor).

Would we risk Ukrainians shooting missiles inside Russian territory to risk of said missile being captured like happened with China grabbing Taiwan's heat seekers?

And that outweighs the risk of of the Russians winning the war? The risk of this war prolonging for much longer? All the suffering endured by the Ukrainians which basically are fighting for all us, the western people?

I do not wish to dwell into politics also. But the fact remains since basically 1945 western Europe has had a free ride for their defense. It is now time for Copenhagen, Brussels, Oslo, and the like.... to reallocate/realign their institutional funding.

I agree with you.
Although I would trade Copenhagen and Oslo with Berlin and something more along those lines. I think that Norway and Denmark are doing what they can - remember that they are small countries with a population of only 5 million people.

So as you say "For instance in the USA you have lots of social problems in great or most part because of the lack of soical programs." Would you care to elaborate on this?

For example, school shootings. Homeless people would be another. The lack of universal heath care another one and so on...
Look, I don't want to criticize here the US and its society but the (IMO severe) problems above could be solved or mitigated with social programs.

And if we do have such problems, then maybe if we didn't spend so much on defense and on military bases within Europe/ European defense in general we could re-allocate such funds for our own peoples welfare. Many Americans are for that including myself.

I think it would be in your right and entitlement to defend that the US government shouldn't spend that much in European defense.
However and looking at the European leaders (which in general, I don't have much sympathy about) I would say that if the US left Europe they would probably welcome China to settle in (in the place of the USA) which would have terrible consequences for the world. I think that the US wouldn't want that to happen and this is probably why they still didn't leave Europe. I think that the Ukrainian War may have changed this quite a bit in this regard but even so...
But yes, if I were an American I think I would rather have the spending in defending Europe allocated to social programs.
Speaking of China, I think that another social program that ALL western countries (USA, Canada, Europe) should implement would be to move the vast majority and most important manufacturing production lines/factories back to their countries (from China).

Well, I drank too much today and probably spoken too much...

I do not wish to dwell into politics also. But the fact remains since basically 1945 western Europe has had a free ride for their defense. It is now time for Copenhagen, Brussels, Oslo, and the like.... to reallocate/realign their institutional funding.

I agree with you.
Although I would trade Copenhagen and Oslo with Berlin and something more along those lines. I think that Norway and Denmark are doing what they can - remember that they are small countries with a population of only 5 million people.

So as you say "For instance in the USA you have lots of social problems in great or most part because of the lack of soical programs." Would you care to elaborate on this?

For example, school shootings. Homeless people would be another. The lack of universal heath care another one and so on...
Look, I don't want to criticize here the US and its society but the (IMO severe) problems above could be solved or mitigated with social programs.

And if we do have such problems, then maybe if we didn't spend so much on defense and on military bases within Europe/ European defense in general we could re-allocate such funds for our own peoples welfare. Many Americans are for that including myself.

I think it would be in your right and entitlement to defend that the US government shouldn't spend that much in European defense.
However and looking at the European leaders (which in general, I don't have much sympathy about) I would say that if the US left Europe they would probably welcome China to settle in (in the place of the USA) which would have terrible consequences for the world. I think that the US wouldn't want that to happen and this is probably why they still didn't leave Europe. I think that the Ukrainian War may have changed this quite a bit in this regard but even so...
But yes, if I were an American I think I would rather have the spending in defending Europe allocated to social programs.
Speaking of China, I think that another social program that ALL western countries (USA, Canada, Europe) should implement would be to move the vast majority and most important manufacturing production lines/factories back to their countries (from China).

Well, I drunk too much today and probably spoken too much...

I do not know how to quote within a quote, so in the prior response I used dashes i.e. - in certain areas.
If you and I can agree on anything, then yes, our domestic manufacturing and its reconstitution is an absolute necessity.

My 2 cents:
IMO, both the Meteor and even the AIM-120D should suffice against Russian fighter aircraft like the Mig-31 armed R-37M. While technically or in theory the R-37M "outranges" the AIM-120D and even the Meteor, the R-37M is a very large missile with somehow limited agility so while it's theoretical maximum range is larger, it's NEZ (No Escape Zone) against fast and agile fighter aircraft should be smaller (than AIM-120D and Meteor).

I actually have questions about this. In DCS the R-37 seem to be a real fighter killer. In the video posted by the Grim Reapers earlier, both the Gripens and F-16s were able to handle the Su-35/R-77 combo. But both were wiped out by the Mig-31/R-37.

So besides the obvious that I think the R-37 is over performing, I also noticed that both NATO aircraft evasion strategy seem to be diving to the deck when being tracked by BVR shots, shouldn’t it he MWR or RWR tell you exactly where the missile is, then when it has also committed to diving down with you, you could do a high G pull up, the missile will have no energy left to change course and pull up with you.

Are modern MWRs not capable of doing this, telling you exactly where the missile is

Isn’t the dcs R-37 a mod? Even the R-33 which is officially has a very dated simplified flight model that is in need of upgrading and not particularly accurate.

I actually have questions about this. In DCS the R-37 seem to be a real fighter killer. In the video posted by the Grim Reapers earlier, both the Gripens and F-16s were able to handle the Su-35/R-77 combo. But both were wiped out by the Mig-31/R-37.

So besides the obvious that I think the R-37 is over performing, I also noticed that both NATO aircraft evasion strategy seem to be diving to the deck when being tracked by BVR shots, shouldn’t it he MWR or RWR tell you exactly where the missile is, then when it has also committed to diving down with you, you could do a high G pull up, the missile will have no energy left to change course and pull up with you.

Are modern MWRs not capable of doing this, telling you exactly where the missile is

While DCS is a "cool" simulator with some study level modules/functionalities and in some aspects the best there is for PC (because it's the only one that currently exists if we exclude Falcon BMS which is a mod for the old Falcon 4), you or anyone else shouldn't use it as an evidence for anything related with actual and real combat, specially in terms of air-to-air combat where I particularly find it to be very, very bad and lacking. I'll explain:
- DCS not only has severe bugs but to make things even worse there's clearly a "Russian bias" (afterall DCS is a Russian product). For example:
While flying a F/A-18, I shot an AIM-7 Sparrow against a SU-27 which was flying head to head to me at a distance of around 8-10 nautical miles and more or less at the same/similar altitude and at the same time I shot my AIM-7, he shot a R-73 (AA-11) and guess what happened next? The R-73 reached my plane first than my AIM-7 reached the Su-27 when none of us made any evasive maneuvers! Note that the AIM-7 has a speed of Mach 4 while the R-73 is Mach 2.5 and the AIM-7 also has longer range.
I've seen AIM-120 shaking very oddly trying to adquire the target. AIM-120 and AIM-7 lose energy extremely fast once the motor runs out of fuel while this doesn't happen with Russian missiles like the R-27 or R-77. I was even hit at least once by a Russian R-27 flying SIDEWAYS!!

So no, don't use DCS as some sort of evidence specially when "analyzing" Russian air-to-air missiles. And to make things even worse and like viperzerof-2 said, the R-37M is likely a mod (which again should make things even worse).

Remains to be seen how is best for Ukraine to defeat the Mig 31 and its R37. Can the Meteor do it? Would we risk Ukrainians shooting missiles inside Russian territory to risk of said missile being captured like happened with China grabbing Taiwan's heat seekers?

I think Meteor or AIM-120C-7 or better would put MiG-31 at so much risk that they'd become rather ineffective. They are not very effective even now when Ukrainian fighters can't really threaten them with long range shots.

I'd bet that modern missiles are far more reliable and less likely to be useful for much except for some general intelligence after being used. Modern fuzing is highly reliable and I bet these missiles have self-destruct system also. Of course it's possible that intact missile would get into Russian hands, but I bet getting really useful information out of them would be difficult for them.

While DCS is a "cool" simulator with

I understand that. But I wanted to know how actual, modern MWR or RWRs work. Because too often I see BVR shots in DCS where the missile has committed to a downward trajectory to meet a fighter in a similar downward trajectory.

at this point I’m thinking, Pull up, the missile has no motor left and will not be able to re commit to you once you change the angle of intercept. This was mainly how the Gripen and F-16 fleets were wiped out by the R-37s. They didn’t want to change their heading even after the missiles have burned through their motor and have committed to an intercept point.

Can’t modern MWRs tell you exactly where the missile is and where its going, where the intercept point will be, etc?

I understand that. But I wanted to know how actual, modern MWR or RWRs work.

RWR's will alert the pilot of an incoming missile when:
- If the missile is semi-active guided the enemy aircraft uses a radar illuminator to track the target aircraft (this would be STT mode in American fighter aircraft like the F-15, F-16 or F/A-18). This usually happened just moments prior to the actual semi-active guided missile launch. But I think some more modern missiles like the R-33 or the semi-active guided variants of the R-37 may fly the initial path/leg using INS mode and when the missile is getting closer to the target then the radar illuminator on board of the launching aircraft would "kick in" and illuminate the targeted aircraft. This would give the targeted aircraft's pilot less time to react.
- If the missile is active-guided than the RWR will only alert the pilot when the missile's radar goes "active" which usually only happens when the missile is close (usually something closer to 10 nautical miles - depends on the missile) which gives the targeted aircraft's pilot even less time to react.
Anyway, the RWR will only alert the pilot's about the missile's approximate bearing. It won't give the pilot the missile's path and how far is it away (distance) at a given time.

I think that regarding MWR, you meant Missile Warning System or MWS, right?
Regarding MWS there are various systems but I don't think that either F-16 or Gripen have them. I could be wrong thou. Regarding MWS there are usually:
- UV (Ultra Violet) System which can detect the missile's plume. But once the missile's motor runs out of fuel and there's no plume and as such technically an UV MWS can no longer detect the incoming missile in those conditions. This makes UV MWS only useful against short range missiles such as a MANPADS or even a short range air-to-air missile. These systems should have very limited effectiveness again medium or long range missiles since at best they could detect them in the early stages after being launched but not in the later stages where the missile is closing in and which would be more important to be detected by the MWS.
- IR (Infra-Red) MWS: Technically better than UV MWS but much harder to develop and integrate on aircraft since these systems should require extensive use of software to discriminate between what's a missile and what's anything else.

Simpler MWS should also only warn the targeted pilot about the missile's bearing, similar to RWRs. Simpler MWS (and I imagine most of them) should be more useful against short range missiles which are usually IR guided and as such won't appear in the RWR.

Because too often I see BVR shots in DCS where the missile has committed to a downward trajectory to meet a fighter in a similar downward trajectory.

at this point I’m thinking, Pull up, the missile has no motor left and will not be able to re commit to you once you change the angle of intercept. This was mainly how the Gripen and F-16 fleets were wiped out by the R-37s. They didn’t want to change their heading even after the missiles have burned through their motor and have committed to an intercept point.

Yes, your tactic looks sound on paper and even in reality, I guess. But the problem is again that in DCS the Russian missiles are just "too good" compared to reality and won't lose energy like they should. So if you change heading against a Russian missile the most likely thing to happen is that you'll lose speed and energy and the missile will catch you up quicker.
So against the (Buffed) Russian missiles in DCS you're probably better at keeping the speed as high possible and hope the missile either overshoots you and eventually loses energy trying to chase you and eventually falls into the ground.

Can’t modern MWRs tell you exactly where the missile is and where its going, where the intercept point will be, etc?

I think that the only aircraft/system that could do that would be the F-35 and eventually the F-22. And even this is a big question mark, I think.
I don't think that other MWS can do something like that but I could be wrong...

While DCS is a "cool" simulator with

I understand that. But I wanted to know how actual, modern MWR or RWRs work. Because too often I see BVR shots in DCS where the missile has committed to a downward trajectory to meet a fighter in a similar downward trajectory.

at this point I’m thinking, Pull up, the missile has no motor left and will not be able to re commit to you once you change the angle of intercept. This was mainly how the Gripen and F-16 fleets were wiped out by the R-37s. They didn’t want to change their heading even after the missiles have burned through their motor and have committed to an intercept point.

Can’t modern MWRs tell you exactly where the missile is and where its going, where the intercept point will be, etc?

Pulling up makes you trade kinetic energy for potential the exact opposite of what you want to do to defeat the missile, since the missile already has altitude and speed advantage. The missile is already diving down on you and you won’t be able to climb higher than the missile’s coasting altitude.

RWR detects radar emissions, either from aircraft, ground radars, or the missile seeker itself. Missile warning systems detects the actual missile launch, usually through the missile’s UV or IR signature or using a MMW radar to detect incoming objects.

There have been some UV MWS seen for F-16s like the Terma PIDS+ pylons , and also the Singapore Block 52+ might have something built in.

DAS might have more potential.




DCS is just a computer game nothing more - especially when it comes to stuff like this.

There have been some UV MWS seen for F-16s like the Terma PIDS+ pylons , and also the Singapore Block 52+ might have something built in.

DAS might have more potential.

Some US F-16s are being upgraded with IR MWS:
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/elbit-to-install-infrared-missile-warning-systems-on-us-national-guard-and-reserve-f-16s/137174.article

This is basically similar to EO DAS in F-35, although more limited due to less capable host aircraft systems (F-16 vs F-35).

There are also UV MWS, which are less complex and cheaper but also a lot less capable. Those systems are limited to detecting the missile rocket engine signatures from close range (less than 10 km) due to UV radiation being quickly absorbed in the atmosphere. This has been discussed here before in length, so probably no reason to go into it again. But long range IR based system would be great for combat environment like what has been in Ukraine. Gripen E has UV-based warning system, but it could likely be fitted with this Elbit PAWS system too.