F-16V vs Gripen NG

[ricnunes]

Agreed, but that's not really surprising. I think Gripen C/D in the offer is better fighter than MiG-29 (especially as it can use better weapons), but in this age it's not really significant.

Well, I really and also thought that the Gripen C/D would be a much better fighter than MiG-29 and hence why I was surprised with this Slovak evaluation. Apparently it was not!

And yes, I agree with you that the Gripen C/D carries better weapons (the AMRAAM speaks for itself) and should also have a much better man-machine interface than the Mig-29.
However in terms of performance the Mig-29 should clearly beat the Gripen C/D, with both aircraft being short legged (short range) and I would even say that the Mig-29 should have a more powerful radar which after having a second look yeah, like you said this isn't really that surprising as one may think at first glance.

Both would get mauled by more modern aircraft and would have serious trouble surviving in modern IADS environment. If Saab could've offered Gripen E at the same price, this comparison would've been much more interesting. But they couldn't and I'm really surprised they thought they had any kind of chance with C/D models against Block 70...

Yeah, I agree.
But what you said is what many of us have been discussing here in this forum. The Gripen E is just too little, too late, too expensive and too limited. It doesn't even have the appeal of the Gripen C/D hence probably why the Swedes didn't offer the Gripen E to Slovakia.
Resuming the Gripen E is inferior to the F-16V while being more expensive!
As such, it's no wonder why the Gripen E has been an export failure.

[ricnunes]

I am guessing that the Gripen C was probably much cheaper than the F-16 block 70/72 and that this was the main selling point of Saab.

And I'm guessing that you could be probably wrong.
I would say that if those F-16 block 70/72 aren't new build ones but instead they are second hand refurbished F-16's (for example F-16A's) which are later updated to the -V standard (Block 70/72) then there's a extremely good chance that such F-16V's are actually cheaper than the Gripen C/D's offered by Sweden (however, I'm not sure which is the case with Slovakia?).

[loke]

Agreed, but that's not really surprising. I think Gripen C/D in the offer is better fighter than MiG-29 (especially as it can use better weapons), but in this age it's not really significant.

Well, I really and also thought that the Gripen C/D would be a much better fighter than MiG-29 and hence why I was surprised with this Slovak evaluation. Apparently it was not!

This could be a bit "political" from those who evaluated it. Clearly they did prefer F-16 to Gripen, and also to MiG-29. If Gripen had been rated "better" than MiG-29 perhaps they were afraid that the politicians and those responsible for the economy would choose the cheaper Gripen. However by trying to put Gripen at the same level of MiG-29 (which already was found to be inadequate) they would strengthen their case for the F-16.

Interesting to note that both Hungary and Czechia have operated Gripen for many years, Hungary operated MiG-29 but rated Gripen higher, and both opted to extend the lease period and upgrade to the latest MS20 version, instead of terminating the lease and buying F-16. I am guessing they will probably both switch to F-16 or F-35 perhaps around 2030, unless Saab manages to reduce the price of Gripen E by then. So far it does not look very promising for reducing the cost of Gripen E, they urgently need more customers if they are going to be able to reduce the price.

[loke]

I am guessing that the Gripen C was probably much cheaper than the F-16 block 70/72 and that this was the main selling point of Saab.

And I'm guessing that you could be probably wrong.
I would say that if those F-16 block 70/72 aren't new build ones but instead they are second hand refurbished F-16's (for example F-16A's) which are later updated to the -V standard (Block 70/72) then there's a extremely good chance that such F-16V's are actually cheaper than the Gripen C/D's offered by Sweden (however, I'm not sure which is the case with Slovakia?).

No, if you read the summary it looks like they are new built. It is very unlikely they are cheaper than then Gripen C/D offered by Sweden.

[gta4]

So, could somebody tell me how cheap the JAS39E is? (price tag, operational $ per hour)

[hkultala]

So, could somebody tell me how cheap the JAS39E is? (price tag, operational $ per hour)

No.

For operating costs, those who eagerly tell it do not tell the facts but say the totally wrong numbers which are taken from Bill Sweetmans hat 10 years ago.

And real numbers are totally different.

[ricnunes]

Interesting to note that both Hungary and Czechia have operated Gripen for many years, Hungary operated MiG-29 but rated Gripen higher, and both opted to extend the lease period and upgrade to the latest MS20 version, instead of terminating the lease and buying F-16. I am guessing they will probably both switch to F-16 or F-35 perhaps around 2030, unless Saab manages to reduce the price of Gripen E by then. So far it does not look very promising for reducing the cost of Gripen E, they urgently need more customers if they are going to be able to reduce the price.

This one of the easiest replies that I ever posted here in F-16.net. All I need to to is copy and past the first part of your reply and do a few changes:

This could be a bit "political" from those who evaluated it. Clearly they (Hungary and Czechia) did prefer Gripen to F-16 and also to MiG-29. If Gripen had been rated "to not have significant improvements" over MiG-29 (like the Slovaks rated) perhaps they were afraid that the politicians and those responsible for the economy would choose to keep the Mig-29. However by trying to put Gripen well above the MiG-29 (which already was found that the Gripen is not) they would strengthen their case for the Gripen.


It's funny that the Gripen has proven to be a sub-par and even failure of a fighter aircraft and this, time after time! The only Gripen's successes in Europe were due and only due to the type of contact - LEASE - and not because of the aircraft itself.
But yet and for Gripen fans like yourself, everytime the Gripen fails or loses it's always because of "politics" and never because of the aircraft (Gripen) which is actually and again a sub-par and weak fighter aircraft, go figure!

[ricnunes]

So, could somebody tell me how cheap the JAS39E is? (price tag, operational $ per hour)

Gripen E flyaway price/cost per unit --> USD $85 Million (confirmed by Saab itself)

Regarding "operational $ per hour" nobody publicly knows for sure.

[gta4]

So, could somebody tell me how cheap the JAS39E is? (price tag, operational $ per hour)

Gripen E flyaway price/cost per unit --> USD $85 Million (confirmed by Saab itself)

Regarding "operational $ per hour" nobody publicly knows for sure.

So the flyaway cost is on par with that of F-35 while JAS39E offers significantly less capabilities.

[ricnunes]

So the flyaway cost is on par with that of F-35 while JAS39E offers significantly less capabilities.

Actually the flyaway cost of the Gripen E is higher than the F-35A which is the F-35 variant we should always be comparing with (since both the F-35A and Gripen E are CTOL).

[loke]

In summary, AMRAAM makes Gripen much farther and more effective in launching air combat and completing it in the final phase of the missile launch. Moreover, in addition to all this, it also has an additional ability, which only adds to its advantage.
Gripens are able to use the data connection (IFDL) between fighter jets to share the targets they are following. So, in the case of a pair of aircraft, the rearmost is able to follow the target, transmit its data to the aircraft in front of it, which launches the missile, and immediately turn the launcher fighter. In 1999, a Dutch F-16AM fighter achieved an air victory against a Serbian MiG-29 during Allied Force Operation Allied Force.

With the aim-120 rocket with active radar control, simultaneous targeting is possible, a Gripen can attack multiple targets at the same time. Until then, the MiG can only attack one target due to the limitations of the semi-active guided R-27R missile.

You can see that gripen now has all the potential advantages of the AIM-120 rocket alone, the data connection between the machines is just the icing on the cake. Let's just say that in terms of aerial positional imaging capability and out-of-sight combat capabilities, the MiG-29 and Gripen are not the difference, but rather a huge gap in gripen's favor. The spread of the AIM-120 has made the MiG largely obsolete, ignoring all other differences.

Looking at the cabins of the aircraft, the comparison is decided at about first glance. The MiG-29 , excuse the term, represents roughly the level of the snapped Stone Age compared to gripen, and does not reach the American standard of the late 1970s in some areas. At the MiG-29, radar image is displayed on the small HUD, with very little information and no multifunctional display at all. A single PIECE of TV display is essentially only capable of displaying the same image as HUD.

Gripen, on the other hand, has three multifunctional displays that can display both the top and side view radar images at the same time, among other things, because they can provide more substantial additional information. Thanks to the on-screen display and countless subsystems, flying and navigating are also much easier than with the MiG-29.

Gripen can display a top-view digital moving map on its large displays, showing navigation points, airspace, airports, threats, the location of your own teams, virtually anything you can apply and see where they are compared to the current position of the machine. This can mean hundreds of data points that can be updated in real time via a data connection. So, other friendly machines or even targets detected by radars appear on it. MiG doesn't have anything like that, the pilot can radio and pretty much. so many. MiG is about as modern in this area as the shale board in the internet age.

Navigation is easier only because, in addition to the inertia navigation system, satellite navigation, namely using the GPS system, the machine essentially knows its own position exactly by meters. The inertia navigation system is laser gyroscope, which is a completely different category from that of the MiG fighter. So, if for any reason satellite navigation is not available, it is also more accurate and simpler to navigate and navigate with the machine.

Of course, gripen also has a radio navigation system, which can be used to determine the position of the plane or make landings in the wrong time with the help of various transmitters and systems. The cabin of the aircraft is night vision compatible.

n comparison, the MiG-29 is capable of storing only about 10 different navigation points or radio directional transmitter coordinates and has only the inertia navigation system typical of the 1970s. This determines the position of the aircraft with an error of up to a kilometer even during a flight of 1 hour. Navigation points are visible at most on the map in the case on the pilot's knee. Changing navigation points and updating a paper map is unnecessary even to measure gripen. Compared to the Swedish machine, the MiG's ability to create and navigate the situational image is completely outdated. The cabin of the aircraft is not even night vision compatible.

At most, the Hungarian MiGs were able to use non-guided small S-8 missiles from missile blocks, and free-fall bombs could also be considered. Supposed. The pilots never practiced bombing, but the pilots fired non-guided missiles at the field. Both weapons can only be used in good visibility and can only be achieved from a low altitude, flying at a height of up to 2 km.

MiG did not have air-to-ground mapping or target detection radar mode. The type is not capable of using guided missiles or precision bombs at all. The aircraft's strike capability essentially did not reach the F-16A Block 1 of the late 1970s, either in firepower, accuracy, or survival due to poorer self-defense capabilities.

In comparison, gripen is the incarnate miracle. The Swedish model is also capable of using countless unguided bombs and precision strike weapons.

Hungary has purchased only 40 AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles from two different variants for the Gripens. 20 AGM-65G2 and 20 AGM-65H variants. The G2 version has an infrared camera and guides itself to its own destination after capture. This larger rocket has a suitable combat area against bunkers, buildings. The smaller H version uses a CCD camera for self-driving and features a formatted combat area - effective against tanks and armored vehicles. This is a rather strange pairing, because the logical thing to do would be to have infrared camera control paired against the vehicles with the shaped combat section. Unfortunately, the amount of weapons purchased is quite frivolous, but it is still more than the MiG 0 capability.

GBU-12 laser-guided bombs were purchased only in the second half of the 2010s. The first live practice with them took place in 2018 at the shooting range in Vidsel, Sweden. Gripen is capable of autonomous target marking for laser-guided bombs thanks to the LITENING target marking container This can be mounted under the nose of the machine, without losing a suspension point from the armaments and spare tanks. In addition to air-to-ground mode, it is also possible to visually identify aerial targets from a long distance using the high-resolution infrared camera that makes up part of the container. Even at night.

These two air-to-ground weapons are no longer high-end devices. Nevertheless, even in this configuration, the Gripen has round-the-clock and day precision strike capabilities. This is due not only to the LITENING container, but also to the air-to-ground modes provided by radar. In comparison, the MiG had essentially only symbolic capability as a striker, but the principled maximum of the type is also very far, far below the Gripen.

If Hungary wanted it and spent it, even the most up-to-date GBU-39 or GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb family could be used. Although the latter type is really a very strong wishful thinking category. Even in the U.S. Air Force, this weapon is only just beginning to spread. The first bomb is a GPS device, a second combined GPS and, in the end phase, a device with infrared imaging control, with which simultaneous target combat is possible. More understandably, the plane can strike multiple targets at the same time. Simultaneous targeting with the GBU-12 and AGM-65 is essentially imaginable only on a principled level, the reality being that a machine attacks a target at the same time.

Self-defense capabilities
The MiG-29 did not have a self-defense electronic jamming system, even in containers in portable form. Apart from the jamming charge cartridges installed in the part in front of the vertical plane, the type had no self-defense system. The cassettes can load 2×30 26 mm infrared trap charges or radar jamming materials. Even at the time of its appearance, the display of the machine's irradiation signalling system was outdated compared to western equipment. Its installation location is already of use, it is below the pilot's right knee, away from HUD, where the pilot usually looks. On Western machines, the irradiation indicator is as close as possible to HUD, but the data can also be displayed on multifunctional displays.

The Gripen has a built-in electronic jamming system. At the back of the fuselage there are 4 BOY 403 type cartridges. It can accommodate 4×40 smaller or 4×20 larger infrared traps. In addition, it is possible to use a BOL system integrated into amraam starter rails installed under the wings, which has Hungary. This can be loaded with 160 smaller infrared traps, but typically infrared traps are stored in the cassettes in the fuselage, bol rails are filled with radar jamming material. Gripen also has a clear advantage in this area.

Evaluation, summary
Here is the verdict. The MiG-29 can only show more than Hungarian Gripens in a very narrow area and only in certain capabilities. This is the nearby maneuvering air battle. It's also because Gripen's potential isn't being exploited, even though it's possible. And even this advantage is only true if we neglect the fact that we should recognize where and when the maneuvering air combat begins, in which the MiG is at a brutal disadvantage. And let's not forget mig's incense engines as factory chimneys, which makes the MiG much easier to see with the naked eye...

Based on what has been said, I hope it has become clear why the MiG-29 is a fighter of the past and why the Gripen is a fighter of the present and the near future, at least at home. Looking at the big picture, compared to gripen's combat value, the MiG does not kick a ball, even if we only watch an air fight and gallantly forget the strike function. Yes, the Soviet fighter jet was able to fly wonderful aerobatic programs, but this is not the reason for aerial combat that fighter jets have been winning for quite some time. In addition, in addition to air combat, there are other tasks that need to be performed, which MiG is unable to do in the first place.

Still, on countless occasions on the Internet, you can find comments denouncing MiG without any reasoning and taking down Gripen without any foundation, or downright smearing it. In my opinion, either they are very ignorant or very biased, or even a combination of the two must exist in order for one to consider MiG to be of greater combat value.

Auto-translated from: https://htka.hu/2021/08/28/mig-29-kontra-gripen/

[ricnunes]

....
Loke's copy/paste of link, bla, bla, bla...
...

So if you cared to read what I previously posted you wouldn't have wasted so much space here in F-16.net!

The part where I said this:

And yes, I agree with you that the Gripen C/D carries better weapons (the AMRAAM speaks for itself) and should also have a much better man-machine interface than the Mig-29.

Pretty much sums up what you posted!
So yes, congratulations on agreeing with me that the Gripen C/D carries better weapons and have a much better man-machine interface than the Mig-29! Basically the only "new" thing that your huge quote/post brought was the Gripen C/D having better EW than the Mig-29. Yes, I can add that to what I previously said.

However the Mig-29 still has better performance and modernized/updated Mig-29's like the Mig-29S likely have a more powerful radar than the Gripen C/D and for example is able to employ R-77 active-guided missiles and is able to engage two (2) targets simultaneously using R-77s. And there are even more advanced Mig-29 variants than the Mig-29S like for example the Mig-29SMT.
I know that Slovakia updated their Mig-29s although I don't know to which version/standard they updated them to. And as far as I know the Hungarians didn't update their Mig-29's (they operated older Mig-29B). So I would say that the fact that the Slovakians found the Gripen C/D not being much of an improvement while the Hungarians did, have to do with the fact that the Slovakian Mig-29's are updated ones (and thus better) than the Hungarian ones and definitely not due to politics as you seem to imply!

I can actually imagine that if a Mig-29 could be updated with western equipment then such Mig-29 would be a superior aircraft to the Gripen C/D. As such and again, an updated Mig-29 with advanced equipment (even if non-western) would certainly close the gap between the Mig-29 and the Gripen C/D.

[loke]

bla bla bla

It's much more than the user interface and the missiles -- it's the whole avionics suite, the "carefree handling", the data links, and how it all works together, with even some (limited) sensor fusion. And yes the EWS is an important part.

[ricnunes]

It's much more than the user interface and the missiles -- it's the whole avionics suite, the "carefree handling", the data links, and how it all works together, with even some (limited) sensor fusion. And yes the EWS is an important part.

If we really want to nitpick then:

Avionics suite (including datalink) = Interface

Even the "carefree handling" that you mention, a.k.a. "Fly-by-wire" can be considered part of the Interface

[madrat]

The man-machine interface goes way further than the avionics suite (including datalink).