F-16V vs Gripen NG

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

block4

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 04 May 2021, 08:26

Unread post13 Jun 2021, 21:51

XanderCrews wrote:
zero-one wrote:The weapons were fine, but added more pylons

the range was fine, but it added more fuel

The avionics were fine, but it has new avionics.

Amazing coincidences. its the greatest fighter ever, in no need of improvement other than that list above that they've been working on for 10 years--- for a plane that was perfect to start with.

I guess its just like a fun hobby or something.


Honestly, most likely, the existing Gripen C would probably come out victorious vs F-16 block 50/52 in a gun fight at a medium altitude merge.

As far as more pylons go, who would possibly complain about capacity for an extra few pylons ? Maybe the other guy?

Gripen E will likely have relevantly greater range with internal fuel than Gripen C.

Gripen E will reportedly be produced with superior modern avionics capacity and cockpit package vs the Gripen C.

No doubt the Gripen E will likely tend to be a valid competitor going forward vs F-16 block 70/72 option, as well as next-gen Typhoon & Rafale upgraded options.
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post14 Jun 2021, 15:45

block4 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
zero-one wrote:The weapons were fine, but added more pylons

the range was fine, but it added more fuel

The avionics were fine, but it has new avionics.

Amazing coincidences. its the greatest fighter ever, in no need of improvement other than that list above that they've been working on for 10 years--- for a plane that was perfect to start with.

I guess its just like a fun hobby or something.



Honestly, most likely, the existing Gripen C would probably come out victorious vs F-16 block 50/52 in a gun fight at a medium altitude merge.


Only if the f-16 was flown by some badly trained pilot of some third world nation.


F-16 block 50/52 has MUCH better T/W ratio than any Gripen and should win the fight quite easily by going vertical. The much greater T/W should also allow it to pull harder sustained turn.


Against block 32 or 42 the Gripen might have some change, as those have the older version of F100 engine and difference in T/W is much smaller.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 952
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post15 Jun 2021, 23:36

hkultala wrote:
From 2002 block42 fleet has changed to PW229, making it one of the most powerful viper block

Only if the f-16 was flown by some badly trained pilot of some third world nation.


F-16 block 50/52 has MUCH better T/W ratio than any Gripen and should win the fight quite easily by going vertical. The much greater T/W should also allow it to pull harder sustained turn.


Against block 32 or 42 the Gripen might have some change, as those have the older version of F100 engine and difference in T/W is much smaller.


Block42 has changed to PW229 since 2002, making it one of the most powerful viper block.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2494
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post30 Jun 2021, 14:14

Pretty impressive stuff from Saab.

Gripen first participated in Red Flag 2006 with the Gripen A,’ says Stefan Englund , former Swedish Air Force Flight Engineer on Quora. ‘It was assigned to the red team. Reduced AWACS, reduced ground support. The Gripens connected their link systems and acted themselves as AWACs, got the battlefield awareness necessary and avoided all ground defence, scored 10 kills the first day including a Typhoon. No losses they remained undetected. One Gripen pilot knocked down five F-16 block 50+ during close air combat in Red Flag Alaska. And the Gripens never lost any aerial encounter or failed their mission objectives. It was the only fighter that performed all planed starts, while others were sitting on the ground waiting for the weather to clear up. The evaluation was that Gripen capacity needed to be revaluated.

‘And no disrespect to any other fighters, including Norwegian pilots because they’re just as well trained, but during a combat exercise with the Royal Norwegain Air Force, 3 Swedish Gripens went up against 5 RNAF F-16’s. The Result was 5-0, 5-0, 5-1 after having flown 3 rounds.

Englund continues: ‘During Loyal Arrow in Sweden, 3 F-15C’s from the USAF were intercepted by a Gripen acting as an aggressor. The result was 2 F-15’s shot down and one managed to escape due to better thrust/weight. To the F-15s defence it was on the Gripens back yard.

Former Swedish Air Force Flight Engineer explains how the Saab Gripen can Dogfight and Win Against (Almost) Any Dissimilar Aircraft
‘F-16 has a higher TWR [thrust to weight ratio], but one need to consider drag and wing loading too. The Gripen has much lower drag. And far lower wing loading. It can reach supersonic speeds on dry thrust while carrying a full armament of four AMRAAM’s two Sidewinders and an external fuel tank. Even though the Gripen lacks the TWR of the F-16 it can nearly match it in climb rate thanks to low drag.

‘The Gripen is among the most underestimated fighters flying today, during the Libyan campaign it came in as a tactical resource but very soon was upgraded to a strategic resource. Also here, no mission was cancelled due to technical issues on the Gripen. And no, it is not invincible, just underestimated. The F-15 can stay out of a fight with a Gripen, keep it on distance, BVR if they can see it and avoid the meteors, but it is not a wise strategy to engage.’


https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former- ... craft/amp/
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 686
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post30 Jun 2021, 16:51

Lol Gripen can supercruise with 6 AAMs and and EFT? Funny that Slovak government eval still placed F-16 above Gripen kinematically and first Swiss eval said F/A-18 was better and that a straight-up "complete redesign" was needed to remedy kinematic shortcomings.

Either Stefan Englund omits some important details about this superfighter, or indeed the Linköping Unicorn is the most underrated fighter in the history of umderratedness.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2494
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post30 Jun 2021, 19:08

hythelday wrote:Lol Gripen can supercruise with 6 AAMs and and EFT? Funny that Slovak government eval still placed F-16 above Gripen kinematically and first Swiss eval said F/A-18 was better and that a straight-up "complete redesign" was needed to remedy kinematic shortcomings.
.


Well to be fair, the parameters used by the Slovaks and the Swiss were probably different to the ones he is using. But if you notice, he didn't really say the Gripen was better.

He said it does not have the T/W ratio of the F-16 or F-15 but can Almost match the Viper in climb rate. Coming from an airplane which spends it's entire sortie with sub 1:1 thrust to weight, thats not bad.

I think the Gripen can hang with an F-16 in a sustained turn (A-A configuration) and compete nicely in instantaneous turns, maybe even do a little better since deltas are known for great inst. Turns

but thats it, the F-16 will definitely out climb and out accelerate it and gain lost energy faster.

The Swiss and Slovaks probably didn't think too much about supercruise so the Gripen didn't get any high marks for that, all 3 Euro Canards could alegedly supercruise by the way.
Offline

F-16ADF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 805
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post30 Jun 2021, 21:45

Stefan cannot even recall the loadout for the Gripen or F-16 for the 2006 Red Flag. If the Saab Superfighter was Red Air (as he said it was) I am willing to bet that it was either flying clean or just had a CL fuel tank. He can't even remember the F-16 Block 50 load out (did they have 2 370 gallon tanks, pylons, HTS - guessing near 100%) since he said they were Blue Air? And he has contradicted himself over his words about Typhoon.

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=11311&p=436919#p436919

Loadout matters as does the ROE and pilot training.
Here is another example https://youtu.be/C9yxqltuB0o?t=43
If both jets had similar loads and starting neutral (+assuming equal pilots), the Typhoon would generally be all over the F-16.
Yet in this video the EF has 2 external fuel tanks on, the Viper does not. Hence, a wrong conclusion could be drawn from it.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2494
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post30 Jun 2021, 23:22

All I got from what he said was basically the Gripen can hold its own against superior fighters on paper.

For all we know, that Gripen that knocked out 5 F-16s could have been a Swedish weapons instructor with 2000 hours going up against brand new Lts. That just got out of B course. He never said the Gripen was better because its just not, his only direct performance comparison was that
1.) Gripen has lower drag than the F-16
2.) Gripen has lower wing loading than the F-16
3.) Gripen can almost match the F-16s climb rate

I dont think we can argue with those points too much, it was designed decades after the F-16 was so its only natural that it would enjoy a few aerodynamic advancements over it. I'd actually be surprised if it didn't.

Everything else he said, about winning against F-16s or F-15s can all be attributed to better tactics, better training, ROEs etc. Honestly, are we even surprised that the Gripen can win (when employed in a certain way) against superior aircraft (when employed in a certain way)

This isn't new, remember Col. Fornloff, he admited that the Su-30MKI was better than the F-15C, but Nelis instrutor pilots flying 2 bag F-15s were demolishing clean Flankers in guns only BFM.

Better pilots win dogfights not better airplanes.
Offline

F-16ADF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 805
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post01 Jul 2021, 00:02

Read his posts on Quora acutely. He also posted that absurd turn performance chart on that site. And what does it show? That somehow the Gripen is superior to all others, ie EF, Rafale, F-22. Common sense and reasoning tell me that's way off.

Getting back to other things he said: The Gripen may have slightly lower drag than the F-16 subsonic. He could be correct on that, I really don't know.

Wing loading/lift comment: The Gripen gets lift from its wing and canard. The F-16 gets lift from its wing, lerx, and H-stab (up to .92IMN I think).

As far as climb rate is concerned, which F-16 is he referencing? I can tell you from first hand knowledge (the F-16CG-1-1) even a Block 42 w/P&W F100-220 can match or slightly exceed a Gripen. Against the other more powerful Vipers, it's much more advantage to F-16.

Additionally, the Gripen C has a MTOW of only 14,000kg (30,865lbs).

All I am saying is that the Gripen is a great "light" fighter. But it becomes rather nonsensical when its fans take it to the extreme and attempt to make it some sort of "heavyweight" jet. It is not. I think Saab knows this, that is why they would rather focus on its sensors and default to it as the "Smart Fighter" than discuss its kinematics.


Gripen A performance numbers:
Climb: Less than 2 minutes from brake release to 10 km (33,000 ft), approx. 3 minutes to 14 km (46,000 ft).
Level Acceleration: Approx. 30 seconds from Mach 0.5 to Mach 1.1 at low altitude.
Turn Performance: Sustained - approx. 20 deg/sec. Instantaneous - approx. 30 deg/sec.

These figures were published years ago in Combat Aircraft, Aviation Week, and Airforces Monthly, so I tend to believe them. Other than a 30 degree maximum turn rate; there is really nothing impressive here.
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 453
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post01 Jul 2021, 06:01

hythelday wrote:Lol Gripen can supercruise with 6 AAMs and and EFT? Funny that Slovak government eval still placed F-16 above Gripen kinematically and first Swiss eval said F/A-18 was better and that a straight-up "complete redesign" was needed to remedy kinematic shortcomings.

Either Stefan Englund omits some important details about this superfighter, or indeed the Linköping Unicorn is the most underrated fighter in the history of umderratedness.


Gripen A could supercruise when clean, just barely. The performance was calculated to be just below M=1 on max dry, but during tested it was discovered that the drag was a few dragcounts below the anticipated so it could go just above M=1 without AB. This is clean.

Still when it rolled out to the SwAF pilots started reporting going supersonic without AB with a loadout of 2 sidewinders, 4 AMRAAM and a centerline tank.... I've herad those stories from pilots who don't do alternate facts so there is a certain plausability to the reports.
I can not explain it fully, but probably the flights were in the cold winter, this gives the motor more thrust.

Gripen C har the same exterior shape, just a tad heavier so same should apply to that, E is another story.

my 5 cents.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2494
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post01 Jul 2021, 08:00

F-16ADF wrote:.
Gripen A performance numbers:
Climb: Less than 2 minutes from brake release to 10 km (33,000 ft), approx. 3 minutes to 14 km (46,000 ft).
Level Acceleration: Approx. 30 seconds from Mach 0.5 to Mach 1.1 at low altitude.
Turn Performance: Sustained - approx. 20 deg/sec. Instantaneous - approx. 30 deg/sec.

These figures were published years ago in Combat Aircraft, Aviation Week, and Airforces Monthly, so I tend to believe them. Other than a 30 degree maximum turn rate; there is really nothing impressive here.


May I add that we should also take into account the load out and altitude for those figures. If they were taken with 60% fuel, clean, down low, then those figures are rather standard for a 4th gen.
Using the word "approximately" can also mean a lot, 18 deg/sec is approx 20 deg/sec.

But as I expected the message the Swedes are trying to push is that the Gripen, despite it's less than stellar paper stats, can hang with more expensive fighters.
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post01 Jul 2021, 08:13

Stefan is comparing Gripen to danish or Norwegian F-16's which AFAIK are F-16a's with the old versions of F100 engines (about 10.6 tonnes of thrust), but modernized into level of some F-16C with all the added weight of the added avionics.

He seems to think all F-16's are like those F-16s of Denmark and Norway.

He is either totally clueless about the fact that modern F-16's have much more powerful engines, or dishonest by not saying it/taking it into account in his posts.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2494
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post01 Jul 2021, 10:56

hkultala wrote:Stefan is comparing Gripen to danish or Norwegian F-16's which AFAIK are F-16a's with the old versions of F100 engines (about 10.6 tonnes of thrust), but modernized into level of some F-16C with all the added weight of the added avionics.

He seems to think all F-16's are like those F-16s of Denmark and Norway.

He is either totally clueless about the fact that modern F-16's have much more powerful engines, or dishonest by not saying it/taking it into account in his posts.


I think its more of the former. This isn't new, whenever we see comparisons between comparable aircraft, the pilots/engineers will always present the data in ways that will put their aircraft in a favorable position.

What do we hear when an F/A-18 pilot talks: oooohhhh slow speed, high AoA, post stall, nose authority, blah blah blah.

F-16 Pilot: thrust thrust thrust and more thrust, 9G monster, I passed out....ooooh my back hurts

F-15: almost like the F-16 but can go slow too, not as slow as the F-18 but we have the best of both worlds oh and up high, we'll eat you alive.

F-35: F-16 and F/A-18 combined with God's eye view of anything and you can't see me. Information, Information, information, my kinematics is just the icing on the information cake.

F-22: Children please


The Gripen is not an exception, wether they compare it to block 42s to close the gap, or send their absolute best pilot to kick butt in Redflag, as long as they can say all the nice things without lying out right, then they're pretty much doing what everyone else is doing.

When F-35 pilots comapre it to an F-16 and F/A-18, we don't ask too much, what block or what load out, what altitude etc. I translated Sefran's comments as:

The Gripen is almost as good as an F-16 kinematically despite having nowhere near as much thrust, we have an ECM suite that world beating (better than the Typhoon as per Swiss evaluation) and in the hands of 1 particular pilot, we dominated. All this for an airplane thats dirt cheap
Offline

F-16ADF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 805
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post01 Jul 2021, 12:58

Another example from World Air Power Journal. (Mirage 2000 is 19.5 and 29 respectively, so this reinforces the above numbers of 20 and 30 degrees for the Jas 39)

Gripen Info.jpg





If you listen to Aircrew Interview Q&A with "Ate"Chuet Rafale Marine pilot and Roger Cruickshank Eurofighter Typhoon pilot they both talk about DACT against the Gripen. And their responses are polar opposite as what Stefan says. And the Eurofighter Typhoon pilot on Prune says generally the same thing (unfortunately, I don't have the link for that).

So I find it very hard to believe that 1 Gripen somehow takes down 5 Block 50s under normal circumstances. Is it possible? Sure it is. But as I said if the Gripen was all up in its flight adversary role; and the B50s were loaded with tanks, pods, pylons he needs to mention that. I once had a VF-111 Tomcat pilot tell me to my face that he took down a couple of F-16's too; the caveat was that he was flying clean and they had 2 tanks on. So I wasn't really impressed.

Again, not bashing the Gripen. It's a great lightweight jet for smaller countries on a budget. But it is simply not this shadow heavyweight that some of its extreme minded supporters purport.

The F-16 has tanks on, so it's basically a pig.
https://eurasiantimes.com/indian-mirage ... tani-f-16/



Edit:
Words from Norwegian CO of 331 squadron at Bodo about fighting Gripen.
Gripen- Polar Cap 2004.jpg



https://youtu.be/7QfiVnmcTtQ?t=223
Block 50's from Shaw at Red Flag, note their configuration.
Last edited by F-16ADF on 01 Jul 2021, 15:06, edited 3 times in total.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2494
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post01 Jul 2021, 14:25

F-16ADF wrote: I once had a VF-111 Tomcat pilot tell me to my face that he took down a couple of F-16's too; the caveat was that he was flying clean and they had 2 tanks on. So I wasn't really impressed.

Again, not bashing the Gripen. It's a great lightweight jet for smaller countries on a budget. But it is simply not this shadow heavyweight that some of its extreme minded supporters purport.


Agreed, its an F-16 class fighter, much less powerful but with somewhat better aerodynamics to compensate, good sensors, and great ECM.

I also think only instructor pilots are assigned to red air, while Blue air can be a mix of veterans and new Pilots. So theres that.

The Thai vs Chinese excercise reported that Thai Gripens were totally creamed in WVR combat (1-25) but more than made up for it in BVR (44-9).
Limiting factor was the less powerful engines and the fact that the Thai Gripens only had Aim-9Ls and not the IRIS-T with HOBS. But I wonder if the PLAAF were using HOBS too.
Read here:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ainonl ... rtaf%3famp

Regarding performance I'd love to see data between the F-16 and the Gripen. Doing some searches it looks like the RNAF used the F-16 MLU with PW-F100-220 motors rated at 23k lbs. They were also slightly lighter than the block 50 but not much.

This may also have been the F-16 Major Dolby Hanche used to compare the F-35 with. The F-35A turned better and accelerated better than his F-16. But if you ask US pilots, they say the F-16 is slightly better than the F-35A in STR.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest