F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

espenjoh

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2003, 21:59

Unread post24 May 2005, 17:45

The exersice with the Gripen is over. The sqd leader at 331 backseated the 39, and he says in the local newspaper that having a 39, insted of the F-16, would be a big setback compared to the M3 uppgraded MLU F-16. (M3=link16, Helmet Mounted Cuing System (HMCS) and JDAM capability).
None of the 39 had this capability, and lack of air refuling made the time in air wery short for the 39. He says the Situational Awareness was mutch better in the M3 uppgraded F-16.

Put one more hardpoint under eatch wing on the 39, and you have a significant better fighter! (hardpoint that can carry JDAM or fuel)

Air refuel, JDAM, HMCS capability for the 39, i quess is comming on newer versjons?

related links: (all in norwegian!)

http://www.mil.no/luft/start/nyheter/ak ... leID=72227

http://www.mil.no/luft/start/nyheter/ak ... leID=81447

http://www.mil.no/1905/start/article.jh ... eID=100618

http://www.mil.no/luft/start/article.jh ... leID=85945

http://www.flightsim.no/forum/showflat. ... =1&fpart=1

ej
Offline

silentnoise

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 24 May 2005, 23:17

Unread post24 May 2005, 23:19

I think Gripen is more better than F-16 with regards to avionics and sensor suite system. Gripen is design to defeat high performance aircraft in a small platform.
Offline

robban

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2004, 13:13

Unread post25 May 2005, 20:24

espenjoh wrote:The exersice with the Gripen is over. The sqd leader at 331 backseated the 39, and he says in the local newspaper that having a 39, insted of the F-16, would be a big setback compared to the M3 uppgraded MLU F-16. (M3=link16, Helmet Mounted Cuing System (HMCS) and JDAM capability).
None of the 39 had this capability, and lack of air refuling made the time in air wery short for the 39. He says the Situational Awareness was mutch better in the M3 uppgraded F-16.



It's obvious that this sqd leader is loyal to the F-16. He didn't try out the TIDLS of the Gripen that's for sure. The Gripen's offered for export have A2A refueling capability. And yes a HMS is underway. And should a buyer want it to carry the JDAM, it will be arranged.

But sure, why wouldn't a 30 year old design be better than an all new state of the art 4th gen fighter. :roll:
Offline

Darkwand

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2004, 15:51

Unread post04 Jun 2005, 10:44

It has no air to air refueling capability because it was one of the first 120 aircrafts built of the A/B versions. Also Link 16 is crap compared to what the Swedish air force use, the C/D versions of the aircraft that are in service are much more capable and NATO adapted.
The helmet mounted sight is a problem but we are currently aquiring one.
Offline

IndianAirForce

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2005, 16:37

Unread post04 Aug 2005, 16:46

The Indian Air Force has a 128 aircraft order coming up. India needs a multirole fighter which can maintain air superiority. Both can do the job but which one would do betteer.These aircraft will be staying in the IAF inventory for a long time and will compete with the new generation of fighters.
Offline

Superpilot

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2005, 22:43

Unread post20 Aug 2005, 22:51

Hello, I am new! Great site! I read that SAAB has abandoned plans for TVC and CFT developments. I don't think so, unless it is official. By the way Gripen International was offering the Super Gripen to Australia and I belieive the same will happen with Greece (unless the Greek contest will be by invitation, as the previous one in 1999). A EJ200-powered Gripen side-by-side with Typhoon... A geat option for Hellenic Air Force (though expensive)!
Offline

Superpilot

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2005, 22:43

Unread post24 Aug 2005, 10:12

I have searced throughout the Web and I did not find any official TVC and CFT cancelation news. Thus, the Super Gripen programme still goes on!
Offline

Superpilot

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2005, 22:43

Unread post28 Aug 2005, 13:55

These is an interesting e-mail by EuroJet Turbo GmbH:

Dear Mr. Ioannidis,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Saab has years ago already investigated the technical and operational
feasibility for re-engineering JAS 39 Gripen with the EJ200 engine.
Both Saab and EUROJET Turbo GmbH concluded that a re-engineering only
shall be considered if there is a customer demand available. From a
technical point of view, the EJ200 engine would fit into the engine bay
of JAS39 Gripen with minor changes applied to the interface connections.
The commercial feasibility of re-engineering JAS39 Gripen would be
supported, if required, by individual business case calculations.

The Thrust vectoring nozzle is offered as an optional item for any of
the EJ200 engine standards.

I hope this answer can help.

Yours sincerely,
Katarina Elbogen

Katarina Elbogen
Executive PR and Political Affairs
EUROJET Turbo GmbH
Lilienthalstr. 2b
85339 Hallbergmoos
E-Mail: k.elbogen@eurojet.de
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post28 Aug 2005, 15:37

But does the Gripen really need a thrust-vectoring nozzel? Most engagements would likely be BVR fights, and if the enemy does find some way to enter a WVR fight, JHMCS, used with advanced short-range missles (Like the AIM-9X) which have a very high off-boresight capability (Up to 90 degrees), and have over a 99% chance of blowing a target out of the sky. NO manned TVC jet can outmaneuver such a missile.

Besides, if the Gripen were to eventually have thrust-vectored engines in the future, it would hurt each aircraft's airframe life, because the Jas-39 airframe wasn't originally designed to use those nozzels. Take the Su-30MKI for example (which, because it's a variant of the Su-27, also wasn't originally designed to use TV nozzels), it's airframe is only suitable for flying up to 3000 hours, while an F-16C's airframe can last well beyond 6000 hours in the air. So the Gripen would probably be better off without the TV nozzels in my opinion...
Offline

Superpilot

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2005, 22:43

Unread post28 Aug 2005, 17:49

ITP of S[ain has made a custom design for the Gripen airframe. I suppose SAAB has studied any further enhancements for the airframe.
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post28 Aug 2005, 19:12

You mean something like what's on this link?:http://www.hitechweb.szm.sk/stealth4f.htm (Scroll to near the bottom of the link for the TVC, CFT Gripen concept photo)
Offline

Superpilot

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2005, 22:43

Unread post29 Aug 2005, 21:32

The airframe enhancement means use of new material, such as metallic foams

http://www.sae.org/aeromag/toptech/12-2002/

and in the future, if the NEURON proceeds well, a tailless Gripen.
The ITP design is already available from 2001.
Offline

wohlstad

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 04:31

Unread post02 Sep 2005, 00:20

I really can't get excited about the Grippen. Basically it's a toy airplane with puny 18K Lb thrust engine, very short range, non-existant payload (weak engine+tiny wings), scarse weapons package - not anything I'd want to take into heavy combat. Yes, it can defend your airfield perimeter, but not much else, at the cost of an F-16/52+, which is why the latter outsold it by 25+:1.

Personally, I'd prefer to see the Lavi - roughly same canard-delta/composite technology but much more capable plane overall (compare 42K Lb take-off vs. 28K for the Jas-39). The Lavi with the Saturn AL-31F engine @28K Lb thrust would've been quite a beast - even compared to the Rafale. Too bad it never made it into service - GD/LocMart knew what they were doing when they squashed it.
Offline

robban

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2004, 13:13

Unread post20 Sep 2005, 16:30

May I suggest you build up some more knowledge about the Gripen before you post your opinion here.

First it's Gripen, NOT Grippen. But don't worry, you're not the only one to make this mistake, it's actually suprisingly common.
18.000lb's of thrust is perhaps puny if you have to push an Su-27 around the skies. But the lightweight Gripen really does quite well with it. Combat range is AFAIK still classified, but ferry range is said to be 3000km. The Gripen can also carry almost 5500kg of weapons on its 8 pylons. For a plane the size of an F-5 this is quite impressive. The Gripen can carry pretty much anything you would want it to. And then there's the world leading TIDLS, a truly modern design, absolutely superior turnaround times, ease of maintenance, short field performance and its MMI and overall operational cost. Beat that! :mrgreen:


wohlstad wrote:I really can't get excited about the Grippen. Basically it's
a toy airplane with puny 18K Lb thrust engine, very short range, non-existant payload (weak engine+tiny wings), scarse weapons package - not anything I'd want to take into heavy combat. Yes, it can defend your airfield perimeter, but not much else, at the cost of an F-16/52+, which is why the latter outsold it by 25+:1.

Personally, I'd prefer to see the Lavi - roughly same canard-delta/composite technology but much more capable plane overall (compare 42K Lb take-off vs. 28K for the Jas-39). The Lavi with the Saturn AL-31F engine @28K Lb thrust would've been quite a beast - even compared to the Rafale. Too bad it never made it into service - GD/LocMart knew what they were doing when they squashed it.
Offline

boff180

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 973
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 10:58

Unread post20 Sep 2005, 17:54

I have to agree on the engine power.... I've seen a Gripen, F-16, Su-27, F-15, Typhoon, M2000 ... pretty much every fighter except Rafale and F-22 display in the same airspace and on the Gripen it showed one thing....

The Gripen is not as manouveurable as the F-16C (all of the above performing min-radius turns, Typhoon being by far the tightest followed by the F-16) however, it has faster acceloration... its a little nippy bugger :)

Andy
Andy Evans Aviation Photography
www.evansaviography.co.uk
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest