F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[gta4]

In fact it is useless to discuss STR and ITR if your opponent can do J turn/tight loop while you cannot. That is several times faster than conventional STR/ITR.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/his ... RV/rd.html

Acoording to NASA, J turn can easily dominate a conventional 2 circle turning fight.

You may ask what if the fight takes place in the vertical plane. Good questuon.

Clime rate = sep = speed * acceleration / g. Peak clime rate is always acheived at subsonic. So vertical maneuverability is largely determined by subsonic acceleration.

Since a F35 can easily out accelerate a clean Su27 at subsonic, it will surely beat a clean Jas39.

[steve2267]

The J-turn (aka Herbst maneuver) has it's place in the F-35 pilot's bag-o-tricks, but it is NOT a do-all, kill-anything-anytime maneuver. For one, you cannot snap off a J-turn at 400kts. You have to slow down to do it. And slowing down may not be a good idea at that particular time. It all depends.

[F-16ADF]

Here is a F-22 (at 20:28), pulling a very very fast initial turn (ITR). One of the best I think I have ever seen. For the rest of the turn (sustainability), I'm sure (and as I have been told) "the jet is not really even trying". The USAF and LM prolly want to keep everyone guessing (in the dark) on that issue-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyoQ0Ago3QU



Willing to bet F-35 is not very far behind here.

[alphaxraylima]

Another proof why Gripen will be in serious trouble even F35 doen't use J turn capability:
Gripen's turn rate will drop as energy depletes. so its average turn rate will be significantly lower than 30 deg/sec, so the time required to turn 270 deg will be much longer than 9 sec.

Remember how F35 showed its ability to loop 270 deg in 9 sec?

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53270

https://youtu.be/vZKDZNc5GC0?t=105 here is a video of a Gripen performing a 270 degree direction change in 9 seconds.

We know that the Gripen loaded with at least 5300 lbs of external stores can perform a 270 degree turn in 13 seconds, which results in a turn rate of about 21 degrees per second. That is better than a similarly loaded F-16C, which would have to apply substantial nose down to keep the turn rate up.

Now the F-35 will most likely enjoy an AoA advantage over the Gripen however, operating at high AoA could result in rapid energy loss and considering the fact that most fighters are equipped with HOBS missiles the F-35, like the F-18, would be vulnerable when its energy gets too low. And this is an area were the Gripen has another advantage over the F-35, it can use the 60 g IRIS-T while the AMRAAMs the F-35 can carry internally have a maximum load factor of 40 g.

But could the Gripen keep that turn rate up? The video in question doesn't provide us with that information. If it isn't sustainable, the comparison to the F-16's EM chart you're referencing is meaningless.

Also, welcome to F-16.net!

Cheers mate, fancy seeing you here.

We don't know if that is a sustainable turn for the Gripen or not. All I can say is that, from that video, it appears like the Gripen would suffer less energy loss compared to a similarly loaded F-16 trying to perform the same turn. The numbers I use for the F-16C is not its sustained turn rate but instead how much energy (Ps) it would lose trying to keep up a turn rate of 21 degrees per second for 13 seconds.

[gta4]

Here is a F-22 (at 20:28), pulling a very very fast initial turn (ITR). One of the best I think I have ever seen. For the rest of the turn (sustainability), I'm sure (and as I have been told) "the jet is not really even trying". The USAF and LM prolly want to keep everyone guessing (in the dark) on that issue-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyoQ0Ago3QU



Willing to bet F-35 is not very far behind here.

I think this turn at 21:45 is much more impressive
https://youtu.be/3WHsRBOlPts?t=21m45s

[optimist]

In one of the earlier videos. They said the f-35 em chart can be overlaid on the f-22 em chart, in the subsonic.

However I think you have to wait till they run out of aim-120/9x, SM6 and anything else that is in the system. Before it becomes an issue.

[firebase99]

Here is a F-22 (at 20:28), pulling a very very fast initial turn (ITR). One of the best I think I have ever seen. For the rest of the turn (sustainability), I'm sure (and as I have been told) "the jet is not really even trying". The USAF and LM prolly want to keep everyone guessing (in the dark) on that issue-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyoQ0Ago3QU



Willing to bet F-35 is not very far behind here.

I think this turn at 21:45 is much more impressive
https://youtu.be/3WHsRBOlPts?t=21m45s

Holy sh*t!!! Yea, that was a square turn, no doubt.

[gta4]

Cheers mate, fancy seeing you here.

We don't know if that is a sustainable turn for the Gripen or not. All I can say is that, from that video, it appears like the Gripen would suffer less energy loss compared to a similarly loaded F-16 trying to perform the same turn. The numbers I use for the F-16C is not its sustained turn rate but instead how much energy (Ps) it would lose trying to keep up a turn rate of 21 degrees per second for 13 seconds.

YOU ARE TERRIBLY WRONG.
Griphen does lose some energy. You can not eyeball energy difference between 400knts and 350kts.
F-16 have done much much tighter turns like this:

16 vs jas39.jpg (53.88 KiB) Viewed 95640 times

[gta4]

Here is a F-22 (at 20:28), pulling a very very fast initial turn (ITR). One of the best I think I have ever seen. For the rest of the turn (sustainability), I'm sure (and as I have been told) "the jet is not really even trying". The USAF and LM prolly want to keep everyone guessing (in the dark) on that issue-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyoQ0Ago3QU



Willing to bet F-35 is not very far behind here.

I think this turn at 21:45 is much more impressive
https://youtu.be/3WHsRBOlPts?t=21m45s

Holy sh*t!!! Yea, that was a square turn, no doubt.

And I think this maneuver's pitch rate (up and down) makes cobra a joke by comparison:

22 fast pitch.gif (380.26 KiB) Viewed 95637 times

Original video:
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBQUkEliW4Q&t=2666s
At 43:50

This is why I always laugh at those who boast Sukhoi's Cobra or Tailslide.
Not even close.

[F-16ADF]

Gripen sea level complete 360 degree turns tend to be around 19 seconds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4OpqANMeEI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhX0i_Y8pNU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF7l1sXuRLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOOc0Up5gfw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PEO1zm6pcY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvKT08cfG0U





Doesn't even come close to Block 30 or Solo Turk Block 40:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goluWOE3q74 (at 4:06 mark)





Gripen has better ITR vs F-16, not STR.

[XanderCrews]

Cheers mate, fancy seeing you here.

We don't know if that is a sustainable turn for the Gripen or not. All I can say is that, from that video, it appears like the Gripen would suffer less energy loss compared to a similarly loaded F-16 trying to perform the same turn. The numbers I use for the F-16C is not its sustained turn rate but instead how much energy (Ps) it would lose trying to keep up a turn rate of 21 degrees per second for 13 seconds.

YOU ARE TERRIBLY WRONG.
Griphen does lose some energy. You can not eyeball energy difference between 400knts and 350kts.
F-16 have done much much tighter turns like this:

16 vs jas39.jpg

It doesn't surprise me. There was that Tiffie pilot who basically said flying a Gripen in WVR combat is harder because it simply doesn't have as much thrust, so the pilot has to be more careful, where as other fighters can make mistake and have enough power to recover and win the fight.

I'm boring, so when my life is on the line I want the most room for error not the least, but if politicians want to save a buck and fanboys can point to recon missions over libya, who cares?

[XanderCrews]

Nevertheless if you want to argue that those competitions make it natural to compare the Gripen E to the F-35 then I think it would make more sense to look at how each fighter could potentially complete specific missions. Again: there is such a huge gap between them that comparing them the way that was recently done here makes no sense I think.

For some very specific scenarios (e.g. QRA) Gripen E may well be able to complete them just as well as the F-35, or any other modern fighter.

However for more demanding scenarios Gripen E would in most cases need more support, e.g., AE&W assets, tankers, dedicated EW assets, and/or more fighters would be needed to fulfil a specific mission set, and/or use of stand-off weapons, and/or use of UCAVs to supplement the Gripen, etc....

The point I am trying to make is that, apart from missions like QRA and a few other "simple" missions, the huge difference between them implies that those other missions would require a completely different approach to completing the mission and therefore comparisons of specific technical parameters like turn rates etc. becomes rather meaningless IMHO.

Believe it or not its not the F-35 fanboys who are inviting comparison and showing their inferiority complex...

Gripen fans are constantly bringing up comparisons and competitions, and when the F-35 invariably and inevitability wins, the same people who brought it up try then try to bury it with every excuse in the book. Interesting tactic to be sure!

In an Open and Fair Competition the Gripen would win!!

Gripen loses again

The Competition must have not have been fair enough. We need another that is even opener and more fairer!

[alphaxraylima]

Cheers mate, fancy seeing you here.

We don't know if that is a sustainable turn for the Gripen or not. All I can say is that, from that video, it appears like the Gripen would suffer less energy loss compared to a similarly loaded F-16 trying to perform the same turn. The numbers I use for the F-16C is not its sustained turn rate but instead how much energy (Ps) it would lose trying to keep up a turn rate of 21 degrees per second for 13 seconds.

YOU ARE TERRIBLY WRONG.
Griphen does lose some energy. You can not eyeball energy difference between 400knts and 350kts.
F-16 have done much much tighter turns like this:

16 vs jas39.jpg

Really don't see how I'm terribly wrong, the Gripen in the this video https://youtu.be/ts8PlXpBO50?t=55 does a 270 degree turn in 13 seconds, that translates to an average turn rate of about 21 degrees per second. That does not sound too impressive until you consider the fact that that Gripen is loaded with at least 5300 lbs of external stores. According to the F-16C flight manual the F-16C (carrying the same ordnance, 2 AIM-9, 4 AGM-65 and a 300 gallon tank), would lose energy equal to about 4000 ft trying to perform the same turn, even during optimal conditions.

[XanderCrews]

alphaxraylima, I guess thats dummy ordnance. We can agree to disagree, but I'm guessing that's the reality there.

If yourre going to compare Flight manuals to videos, I'm going to hoist the BS Flag. If you have a Gripen Flight manual and can compare it accurately and properly to the F-16 manual for solid comparison I'm all ears. But I'm not going to say "look at that snazzy youtube fan video!!" and now compare it to the boring reality of an actual flight manual. Because in that case the aircraft that has actual facts is "losing" because its actual facts. Reality should not count against in an actual factual analysis

[alphaxraylima]

If you have a video of a F-16 turning like that with a similar load please enlighten me. And even if it's dummy ordnance it should have similar drag and weight characteristics to live ordnance, otherwise said dummy ordnance would not make much sense, would it?