F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post12 Mar 2021, 14:41

loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:It excels in that area that is most easily replaced by those loyal wingman style UAVs you were going on and on about in 3 or 4 threads. Reconnaissance is the most drone friendly domain by far.

Gripen: A superb manned UAV.

I think you are missing a couple of points:

1. Most of the partners in the Libyan mission were initially very skeptical that Gripen could contribute anything at all. They were surprised.
2. For political reasons recon was pretty much the only mission Gripen was allowed to do. So we do not know how Gripen would have solved other missions, because it did not do any of them. What we do know is that for the mission it was assigned to, it performed superbly well, compared to the other assets that were available from the allies that participated at that time (2011).

Anyway, this is old stuff, this was Gripen C flying with MS19; now Gripen has MS20 with increased a2g capabilities, increased radar range (mk4), Meteor integration, improved ISTAR capabilities, improved datalink, auto-GCAS, improved CBRN, etc. And later this year the first Gripen E will be delivered. No doubt F-35 is far superior, however I think that if Gripen, be it C or E, is ever called to do more than "recce", it will be able to perform according to plan and according to requirements. Gripen E is still small but the brand new avionics, the AESA radar, the IRST, the Arexis system, the improved datalink and the much improved sensor fusion will make sure that Gripen should not be discounted, in particular when the potential opponent is mainly flying Flankers.


It performed it’s ‘recon’ missions with it’s standard radar, standard EW and a Lightning pod. Any modern tactical fighter with similar equipment would have performed just as ‘superbly’.

This is no slight on the aircraft, but making out as if it were somehow superior in this role is just marketing BS.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3149
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Mar 2021, 15:03

loke wrote:
magitsu wrote:
loke wrote:So we do not know how Gripen would have solved other missions, because it did not do any of them.

We do know some more. Since Sweden still hasn't bought and integrated a proper cruise missile, it would've been useless in the Libyan bombing campaign.

Let's get back to this when E's A2G IOC is scheduled to happen (~2026-27).

AFAIK Norway, Denmark, Belgium, (and the Netherlands) did not launch a single cruise missile during the Libyan mission.


AFAIK they (Norwegian, Danish, Belgian or Dutch F-16's) didn't launch cruise missiles during the Libyan operation but they could have dropped Laser Guided Bombs (and some probably did?) something that the Gripen at that time (MS19) simply couldn't, even if they (Swedes) wanted to!

And having the capability to drop Laser Guided Bombs is far, far more important than being able to release Cruise Missiles (try performing CAS missions with cruise missiles - LoL) namely in that operation/conflict (Libya 2011).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7015
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Mar 2021, 16:25

Conan wrote:
It performed it’s ‘recon’ missions with it’s standard radar, standard EW and a Lightning pod. Any modern tactical fighter with similar equipment would have performed just as ‘superbly’.

This is no slight on the aircraft, but making out as if it were somehow superior in this role is just marketing BS.


Come on man stick to the script!

speaking of blasts from the past, how has this aged? any thoughts as we approach the 7th anniversary?

Is Saab’s New Gripen The Future Of Fighters?
New Gripen may be the next wave
Mar 24, 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Lockheed Martin labeled the F-35 a “fifth-generation” fighter in 2005, a term it borrowed from Russia in 2004 to describe the F-22. Some of their rivals tumbled into this rhetorical trap and tried to argue that “fourth-generation” was just as capable. Whether it is true or not, making such a case is an uphill struggle.

But if “fifth-generation” means more than “the ultimate driving machine,” a sixth generation will emerge. Saab can argue that the JAS 39E Gripen, rather than some of the wildly expensive-looking artist's concepts we have seen, is the first such aircraft.

The Gen 5 concept is almost 30 years old. It dates to the final turning point in the Cold War, when the Reagan administration accelerated the arms race, believing (correctly) that the Soviet economic engine would throw a rod first. The F-22 was designed for a challenging but simple war: If you were in a NATO fighter and the nose was pointed east, pretty much everyone headed your way was trying to kill you.

Defense technology led aerospace in those days, and aerospace drove many other technologies. Today's gaming, simulation and movies are descended from 1980s military simulators.

The world has changed a bit. Operation Allied Force in 1999 presaged the air campaigns of the 2000s, when targets were soft but hard to find, and harder yet to pick out of the civilian environment. We can say little for certain about the nature of future conflict, except that it is likely to be led by, and revolve around, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). For the individual pilot, sailor or soldier, that translates into situational awareness.

Demographics and economics are squeezing the size of the world's militaries—nations with more than 100 combat aircraft are few and becoming fewer. There are no blank checks for overruns.

Much of the technology of 1995, let alone 1985, has a Flintstones look from today's perspective. (My 1985 computer boasted 310 kb. of storage and communicated at a screaming 300 bits per second.) Software is no longer what makes machines work; an iPhone is hardware that is valued because of the apps that it supports. This technology is characterized by development and deployment cycles measured in months. In aerospace, the lead in materials and manufacturing has gone to the commercial side.

The conundrum facing fighter planners is that, however smart your engineering, these aircraft are expensive to design and build and have a cradle-to-grave product life that is far beyond either the political or technological horizon.

The reason that the JAS 39E may earn a Gen 6 tag is that it has been designed with these issues in mind. Software comes first: The new hardware runs Mission System 21 software, the latest roughly biennial release in the series that started with the JAS 39A/B.

Long life requires adaptability, both across missions and through-life. Like Ed Heinemann's A-4 Skyhawk, the Gripen was designed as a small aircraft with a relatively large payload. And by porting most of the software to the new version, the idea is that all C/D weapons and capabilities, and then some, are ready to go on the E.

The Swedes have invested in state-of-the-art sensors for ISR and situational awareness (AW&ST March 17, p. 28), including what may be the first in-service electronic warfare system using gallium-nitride technology. It's significant that a lot of space is devoted to the identification friend-or-foe system. Good IFF is most important in a confused situation where civilian, friendly, neutral, questionable and hostile actors are sharing the same airspace.

Sweden's ability to develop its own state-of-the-art fighters has long depended on blending home-grown and imported technology. Harvesting technology rather than inventing it becomes more important as commercial technology takes a leading role and becomes more global. The JAS 39E engine is from the U.S., the radar from Britain, and the infrared search and track system is Italian. Much of the airframe may be built in Brazil.

However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a Gen 6 tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world's fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than the JAS 39C, despite doing almost everything better. As one engineer says: “The Swedish air force could not afford to do this the traditional way”—and neither can many others.

It's an ambitious goal, and it is the first time that Sweden has undertaken such a project in the international spotlight. But if it is successful, it will teach lessons that nobody can afford not to learn.

Is Saab’s New Gripen The Future Of Fighters? | AWIN content from Aviation Week


what lessons have all those other, lesser manufacturers learned from saab/sweden the last 7 years? :mrgreen:
Choose Crews
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2967
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post12 Mar 2021, 16:53

Maybe we should be designing Air Dominance fighters with short shelf lives. Disposable. Cheap compared to traditional jet fighters. Built superior with each revision. They can be launched from about any platform, from the ground or off vehicles.

We can call them 'smart optionally manned Air Dominance fighters' or give them a short name like 'missiles'. Then we can build platforms that are flexible enough to carry any revision. The platforms just need be survivable.
Last edited by madrat on 12 Mar 2021, 16:56, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7015
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Mar 2021, 16:55

madrat wrote:Maybe we should be designing Air Dominance fighters with short shelf lives. Disposable. Cheap compared to traditional jet fighters. Built superior with each revision. They can be launched from about any platform, from the ground or off vehicles.

We can call the missiles. Them we can build platforms that are flexible enough to carry any revision. The platforms just need be survivable.


Image
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3149
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Mar 2021, 19:02

madrat wrote:Maybe we should be designing Air Dominance fighters with short shelf lives. Disposable. Cheap compared to traditional jet fighters. Built superior with each revision. They can be launched from about any platform, from the ground or off vehicles.

We can call them 'smart optionally manned Air Dominance fighters' or give them a short name like 'missiles'. Then we can build platforms that are flexible enough to carry any revision. The platforms just need be survivable.


The Japanese had something similar to that in WWII:

Image

:wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post12 Mar 2021, 22:34

loke wrote:Did the Netherlands have cruise missiles that they could fire from their F-16 back in 2011?


None of the EPAF countries have cruise missiles.
Non-US NATO air launched cruise missiles:
UK (Tornado ret., now EF), France (Mirage 2000, Rafale), Italy (Tornado), Greece (M2000): Storm Shadow / SCALP
Germany (Tornado), Spain (EF-18): Taurus KEPD 350
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post12 Mar 2021, 22:41

Conan wrote:It performed it’s ‘recon’ missions with it’s standard radar, standard EW and a Lightning pod.


The standard recce config includes the SPK 39 Recce pod. https://twitter.com/gripennews/status/1 ... 0952720386
And it's Litening, whereas the recce pod from Rafael in the same form factor is called RecceLite. Which the Gripen did not use. :wink:
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post13 Mar 2021, 14:33

eagle3000 wrote:
Conan wrote:It performed it’s ‘recon’ missions with it’s standard radar, standard EW and a Lightning pod.


The standard recce config includes the SPK 39 Recce pod. https://twitter.com/gripennews/status/1 ... 0952720386
And it's Litening, whereas the recce pod from Rafael in the same form factor is called RecceLite. Which the Gripen did not use. :wink:


There you go. Happy to be shown to be wrong. I’m sure the IMiNT from those wet film cameras was greatly appreciated.
Offline
User avatar

doge

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 703
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post13 Mar 2021, 15:49

New Customers for Gripen, F-15 and F-35 ? :roll:
https://112.international/society/ukrai ... 59707.html
Ukraine plans to receive F-15 and F-35 fighters
At the first stage, it is planned to receive aircraft of the Gripen and F-15 types.
12 March 2021
The Commander of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Serhiy Drozdov announced Ukraine's intention to receive new multi-functional 4 ++ generation aircraft - the American F-15 and the Swedish Gripen. In the long term, Ukrainian pilots expect to receive the 5th generation F-35 fighter-bombers. This is reported by the Ukrainian Military Portal.
"The main priority for the further development of the Air Force aviation should be the re-equipment of aviation equipment for a single type of the 5th or generation 4 ++," Drozdov said.
He noted that at the first stage, it is considered to receive aircraft of the Gripen and F-15 types. In the future, with the deepening of relations with partners, they are counting on the transition to a modern 5th generation F-35 aircraft.

In a telephone conversation with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirmed the readiness of the new US administration to develop economic and military support for Ukraine, including the provision of lethal weapons, the press service of Ukraine's Foreign Ministry reports.
"Anthony Blinken assured Dmytro Kuleba of the new US administration's readiness to develop strong economic and military support for Ukraine, including the provision of lethal weaponry," the statement said.
It is noted that "the parties paid special attention to joint efforts on countering hybrid threats and misinformation."
The officials also discussed the prospects of contacts at all levels, including the highest ones.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7015
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Mar 2021, 18:45

Some companies avoid publicly stating the cost of their aircraft, but Saab seems more transparent. The Gripen is touted as a lower cost option, roughly what would a nation buying 24 Gripen E/Fs pay per unit? 

Well we are very transparent, but won’t give out flyaway prices. I can say that in Brazil the public figures for the total aircraft, support and Industrial package are quite public, and when compared to other public figures, well we deliver value for money.


https://hushkit.net/2018/05/12/6th-gene ... -gripen-e/

Image
Choose Crews
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 793
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post13 Mar 2021, 20:16

Related to that, there was a recent Finnish article that studied the anti-corruption practices of the different companies. Or rather referenced Transparency International's DEFENCE COMPANIES INDEX 2020 on Anti-Corruption and Corporate Transparency. https://ti-defence.org/dci/

Boeing, LM and BAE had the best commitment to anti-corruption practices. Saab was deemed less transparent, but Dassault was the worst.

Clearly there's much smoke and mirrors between the company practices and what their marketing departments claim as transparency. Ultimately nobody, not even the public wants to fully admit knowing how the arms deal business seems to work.
Switzerland is probably the pinnacle of the weirdness that is selling fighters to the public when the professionals are the only ones that have a chance of understanding what they are really about.
https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotima ... 6ae759-999
Offline

drpepper

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2021, 13:07

Unread post13 Mar 2021, 23:28

F-35A 1vs1 Sure . Gripen 2vs2 or more F-35A 16:1 for Gripen until the day s working data link system that come close to Gripens. it you will maybe advance to 16:2.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2734
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post14 Mar 2021, 00:51

drpepper wrote:F-35A 1vs1 Sure . Gripen 2vs2 or more F-35A 16:1 for Gripen until the day s working data link system that come close to Gripens. it you will maybe advance to 16:2.


What?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3149
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 Mar 2021, 04:11

drpepper wrote:F-35A 1vs1 Sure . Gripen 2vs2 or more F-35A 16:1 for Gripen until the day s working data link system that come close to Gripens. it you will maybe advance to 16:2.


The drugs are strong in you... :roll: :doh:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests