F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

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

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7292
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post20 May 2021, 01:10

loke wrote:. 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.


And we wonder why it can't get deals anywhere?I thought old Gripen could already handle Flankers? and now at a low cost of a couple billion and over a decade of development with 6 years to go until FOC it can... handle Flankers?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7292
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post09 Jul 2021, 15:23

zero-one wrote:

https://www.saab.com/products/gripen-c-series

Gripen C-series is equipped with sophisticated datalink technology, a long range multi-mode pulse doppler radar and an internal electronic warfare suite. All integrated in a system of systems with information transferred via sensor fusion through the smart intuitive pilot interface. Providing the pilot with superior situational awareness and decision support to make sure Gripen pilots are first to know and first to strike
.[/quote]

One of the biggest factors of sensors fusion is that the pilot is not the brain that is putting all the data together himself to understand the situation. Gripen still uses federated systems. The pilot has to put together what the IRST is seeing, with what the Radar is seeing, what his targetting pod is seeing (that he is also steering himself, and is not integrated or fused with the aircraft at all) true sensor fusion is the sensor doing that work, and then presenting that to the pilot as a complete picture. the pilot need only decide now, as opposed to playing detective. The simple fact with Gripen is that we use targetting pods. We know their limitiations. an A-6 had internal jamming, 2 radars that worked together and internal sensors, and we would never say thats a sensor fused airplane, but to its credit it at least had an integreated targetting pod :mrgreen:

Image



https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/09/0 ... ta-fusion/

http://interactive.aviationtoday.com/av ... -worth-it/

Saab has made ambitious claims about its new product, stating:

The fighter is developed to counter and defeat the most advanced threats in a
modern battlespace and to continuously evolve in order to keep up with new
challenges. We have built an intelligent fighter system that rapidly embraces new
technology and tactics in a way that will always keep us ahead…Gripen E/F is the
only fighter which rapidly adapts to unfolding developments and stays relevant
over time.

Despite this rhetoric, the Gripen-E is fundamentally an upgraded fourth-generation type.
To this end, it boasts a high-performance airframe and advanced avionics. But the type
does not possess “fifth-generation battlefield networking,” as claimed by Saab.239 In fact,
the Gripen E is already well behind the latest allied standards for technical interoperability.
This capability deficit is unlikely to improve over the type’s lifecycle.
The Gripen E is equipped with not one, but two TDLs. The first is the Tactical
Information Data Link System (TIDLS), which is designed and manufactured by Saab in
Sweden.TIDLS permits the pilot to share position, altitude, airspeed, heading, fuel levels,
radar returns, targeting information and weapons data with up to three other Gripens and an
Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft equipped with specific Saab systems.
TIDLS has a range of up to 500 km and is jam resistant.241 The system is clearly geared for use
by the Swedish Air Force. However, TIDLS has so far only been fitted to a handful of Saab
products, is not compatible with Link 16 and has not been cleared to host Five- and Two-Eyes
intelligence flows..

..., as the US, UK and Australia increasingly adopt fifth-generation warplanes and
their next-generation CIS, Link 16-enabled RCAF Gripens would simply not be comparable to
or compatible with allied C4ISR standards. The Multifunction Advanced Datalink (MADL)
integrated into the F-35 has not yet been cleared for use on any other American aircraft apart
from the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, and given strong national security and commercial
interests, it is doubtful that the TDL will ever be cleared for use on a platform designed and/or
manufactured outside the US. Even if MADL were to be cleared for use on the Gripen, the
evolved fourth-generation type would not have the sensors or VLO attributes to make use of it.
Saab will be unable to develop upgrades for the Gripen E that keep its networked capability
abreast of Canada’s Five- and Two-Eyes partners. The Gripen E will only fall further behind.

I could honestly go on and on, but I have to leave town in a couple hours and won't be back for days. I guess I will check back here soon, but the simple fact is that no they are not "Sensor fused" in the way its currently thought of. even data sahring on F-35 is automatic. With Gripen the pilot is manually sending information out via its datalinks. the F-35 is doing this automatically without the pilot having to take his hands off his mirror and comb.

The F-22 has the same types of sensors the Gripen has (active Radar, passive emissions reciever, data links) but no one kept asking how when LM said it had sensor fusion


LM has been screaming it from the rooftops, and everyone else in typical fashion has been saying its completely unneeded, or marketing hype-- and then scrambling to claim they do it too. Trendsetters are fun like that.



I guess they never went vertical against it


They may or may not, It doesn't change the fact that the Gripen has great kinematics, much more than the low T/W ratio will suggest.

zero-one wrote:The only F-16 that will compare favorably against the Gripen is the block 70, all other F-16 just have better kinematics, range and payload.



define "great"


on the way for the F-35, available for other aircraft as well Rafale (see I


I never compared it to the F-35, why mention it here? F-35 doesn't even need Meteor, the advantage of Stealth is you can come closer un detected, launch with less warning and give your missile a higher Pk. The F-35 can be armed with nothing more than Aim-120Bs and it will dominate.

See this is what I mean, when the F-35 was compared with the F-16 kinematically by Maj. Dolby Hanche, there was 0 push back, we didn't even question what block of F-16 Hanche was comparing it to. It was most probably the F-16A MLU they used over there with PW220 engines.


we get far more detailed information about the F-35 for one. on both ends. Thanks to things like DOT&E and other overight we get to learn all the good and the bad. They use things like numbers and other measurable tangible things. The Gripen suffers from a certain european dysfunction-- its perfect. always. thanks to a highly competitive european market, they can't actually tell the truth, even when the truth is obvious.

The Gripen is not underpowered, but the Gripen NG will have a more powerful engine

The Gripen does not suffer from short range, but the Gripen NG will have more fuel

The Gripen weapons load is fine, but the Gripen NG will have 2 more pylons.

The Gripen is a weapon system perfected-- here is a new improved version

The Gripen has never been delayed, its always on time-- the schedule just keeps moving to the right.





But when its another country's aircraft, the push back is immense.


I was pushing back at the lies. Stefan Endglund is nothing more than a guy claiming to be something, that then made massively inflated claims that were verifiablely untrue-- by saabs own claims. he completely rewrote history and dutifully repeated the lies here. And I won't abide by that. Many things with Gripen "go viral" that are never true in the first place. Again this is saabs style of marketing.


You can't even accept that it has sensor fusion and great kinematics,


sensor fusion has been explained, and even you said the F-16 kinematically outclassed it:
zero-one wrote:The only F-16 that will compare favorably against the Gripen is the block 70, all other F-16 just have better kinematics, range and payload.



the bottom line is that its underpowered, F-16, Rafale, Typhoon, all have them for lunch, and the first thing that Gripen NG did was add a more powerful engine, which would have been great, but then they added another 1200 kilos in weight to nullify it. I don't know how this is so hard to comprehend. I've been watching the Gripen for years and years, and beyond the company hype its got some serious issues. if you want to hoist the nationalism flag on that feel free, but its actually a very poor value. it costs a lot of money for what you get.

lastly Saab are masters of of pouring "incredible" info into the field, incredible as in "not credible" but when formal and official RFPs come out, suddenly the aircraft falls back to earth. moreover, the thing has never been built to be a world beater. Its entire reason to exist is to give acceptable performance at a rock bottom price. fans can't decide whether its supposed to be the gold standard, or just happy to be in the game-- so they usually pick both.



But when it's the F-35, no questions asked,


yes, F-35 has escaped critique the last 15 years.

Because the Gripen and Rafale are not American, yes they may have US parts, but theres an underlying theme that other countries can't make great systems too.


"may have US parts" LOL the two biggest factors in 21st century aircraft developments are engines and avionics and in both cases Saab the miracle workers have outsourced that. the Gripen has so many UK and US systems (not just some parts, but the brains and the braun of the airplane) that UK and US arms exports apply-- they can't even sell gripens without the UK and US approving it.

I don't dislike the gripen because 'merica I think its overhyped, and I would say "over sold" but it doesn't really sell either so I will say "over marketed".

allow me to give you an example the famous "refuel rearm in 10 minutes" well for one that is crew dependent. 2, you bet its easier to refuel an airplane with a small tank, and 2 fewer pylons than an F-16! it needs to be remembered, that the only reason they make a big deal of a metric most air forces never mention is because Gripen early on had a reputation that it was a complete lightweight, the ability to cycle faster thus became critical to addressing what many considered a critical weak spot. even more so because the original Gripens couldn't refuel in the air. so hell yea, you better be able to land on that road and top off damn quick because all the other sane air forces use the tanker. Gripen C later "fixed" the aerial refueling problem by putting the probe over the shoulder where he can barely see it. there are tons of head scratchers on this thing. Like why would a roadside fighter not include a built in ladder for the pilot to climb into? Thats pretty basic stuff for expeditionary and austere operations-- F-35 has one, A-10 has one, Harrier has a step so the pilot can pop into the cockpit in areas with no aircraft support gear. instead i see ground crews bringing out those yellow ladders. why? why? why?



I think one look at its statistics, and the numerous lies paints a very very different picture, and lastly, I'll point out that the CGI images I first some from Gripen NG date back to 2006. its 2021 and is only supposed to get into service this year-- for a gripen follow up design? really? Its late to the party, and horrifically so. and they know it, they don't have the budget or even the expereince to hang with the big boys. it simple reality and moreover, even Bill Sweetman the Gripens number 1 fan, says the Gripen is "deliberately constrained" I'll leave it up to you what he means.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3375
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Jul 2021, 16:09

Reply from the "Rafale" thread:

zero-one wrote:
https://www.saab.com/products/gripen-c-series

Gripen C-series is equipped with sophisticated datalink technology, a long range multi-mode pulse doppler radar and an internal electronic warfare suite. All integrated in a system of systems with information transferred via sensor fusion through the smart intuitive pilot interface. Providing the pilot with superior situational awareness and decision support to make sure Gripen pilots are first to know and first to strike
.


So you're talking and bragging about an aircraft (Gripen C) by claiming to have a very sophisticated datalink technology to the point of being superior to the F-16 (except Block 70) in this regard and yet you ignore that this same aircraft - the Gripen C - needs a quite extensive and recent upgrade called MS20 in order to even be able deploy/release LASER GUIDED BOMBs (like the GBU-12) something that F-16's of almost all blocks and sorts have been doing for decades! :roll:


zero-one wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
You should learn how to calculate T:W ratio. It’s total thrust divided by total weight, which includes ALL internal fuel. It should be 0.87 for the Gripen C and 0.86 for the E.

And there’s no such thing as “exaggerating” math. It’s right or wrong.

Nope thrust to weight is not a fixed number and it constantly changes.
I have defended the F-35 time and again using T/W which is higher than an F-16 when configured for the same mission.
Others have done the same,


The problem with your point above is that the Gripen already has a very considerably less range and endurance than the other aircraft that we're comparing with (F-16 included)!
This means that you can reduce all the other aircraft fuel weight to match the Gripen's range and endurance with full fuel and thus increasing all these "competing" aircraft T/W ratio.
This is something which obviously you cannot do with the Gripen.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2496
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post09 Jul 2021, 16:51

Lot of things to unpack XanderCrews
Lets start with sensor fusion.

In Saab's website, they say that information is obtained via offboard and onboard sensors and data links supported by integration, fusion and decision making aids
Screenshot_20210709-224447_Chrome.jpg


Thats the exact definition of sensor fusion.

Kinematics. Here is a Chinese pilot comparing it with the Su-27 monster. Thats not an exageration the Su-27 is an F-15 class fighter and its pretty similar to the Su-35 when TVC is not involved. Less thrust but lighter. So I expected the Gripen to be inferior in all categories, with a T/W ratio of 0.9 in most situations, I expected the worst.
Gripen versus Su-27
G limit: +9/-2 versus +8/-2
Engine thrust: “capable” versus “strong”
Avionics systems: “strong” versus “average”
Sustained performance/turn rate: “capable” versus “strong”
Instantaneous performance/turn rate: “strong” versus “average”


I'd say this is pretty great, at the very least not bad, add to this every single pilot who says it is extremely agile with paper specs not doing it justice.

Now I'm not saying its better than an F-16, its generally not (except for instantaneous turn maybe) but this isn't bad at all.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26215
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Jul 2021, 17:02

In case you missed SOME detailed info on F-35 Sensor Fusion with comparisons for other sensor 'fusion' types 100 page PDF.
Attachments
F-35AdvancedSensorFusionCockpitSkaffLMpp100.pdf
(7.75 MiB) Downloaded 20 times
Last edited by spazsinbad on 10 Jul 2021, 05:29, edited 2 times in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2496
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post09 Jul 2021, 17:08

Thank you. But I never conpared it to the F-35's sensor fusion.

This originate from a comparison I made between the Gripen C and the F-16C block 50.

I said the block 50 has better kinematics, range and payload while the Gripen C has sensor fusion, advanced data links, great ECM and Meteror integration.

Even if it was the worst sensor fusion (i.e.only fusing radar and RWR) thats still something that the block 50 doesn't have.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26215
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Jul 2021, 17:22

The 'zero-one' GRIPEN DISPLAY SYSTEM graphic above now OCRed in all its SUPERIOR glory below.
"EP-17 - GRIPEN DISPLAY SYSTEM SUPERIOR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

Based on experience accumulated during fourty [forty] years of cockpit display design, Saab has developed the EP-17 Cockpit Display and Recording System, for the Gripen multi-role combat aircraft. A state-of-the-art HMI that provides the pilot with all necessary information in real time.

Superior situational awareness
The Gripen total information-handling system provides superior situational awareness to the pilot. Integrating man and machine, putting the pilot in command of information and to achieve information superiority with low pilot workload, has been given highest priority in the Gripen system.

In this true fourth-generation aircraft, information is obtained via onboard sensors and databases as well as data links between aircraft, and between aircraft and ground control, all supported by integration, fusion and decision-making aids.

The pilot's information interface
The display system is the pilot's information interface with his platform system-of-systems. The wide-field-of-view diffraction-optics head-up display (HUD) and the three [does pilot 'fuze' those?] large-area colour head-down displays provide an outstanding interface, well adapted to human requirements for mission success.

The head-up display
The HUD is equipped with a holographic diffraction-optics combiner which gives the display high visibility within a wide field-of-view with minimal interference to external vision. The unique display-formats, featuring spherical attitude lines, give superior attitude awareness and improve flight safety.

Head-down multi-function colour displays
The large-size multi-function displays (MFDs) provide the pilot with all necessary information for superior [is this 'mother' superior?] situational awareness.

In the two-seat version of Gripen, the rear-seat is also equipped with three MFDs. One is smart and gives the rear-seat pilot the possibility to operate independently from the front-seat pilot and, for example, perform command-and-control, electronic-warfare or reconnaissance tasks.

High flexibility and redundancy in all situations
The display processor is divided into two separately powered sections, each controlling two displays. This provides system redundancy.

Emergency mode
The Gripen cockpit has an emergency mode, integrated into all head-down displays, thus maximising all available front panel space to give the largest display surfaces possible. The emergency mode is supplied by redundant data sources and power supply.

Digital recording for mission efficiency
Images from sensors and other sources are recorded. These include images from the radar, TV/IR-guided missiles, HUD camera, forward-looking infra-red (FLIR) system and reconnaissance pod.

Sensor data and information from the cockpit displays and controls are also recorded. Two encoder/decoder channels (MPEG-2) as well as a radar channel are integrated in the display processor to allow for multiple video, data and audio recording and playback.

A mass memory cartridge is used to transfer data to and from the aircraft. The recording system allows flexible replay of complete missions in the cockpit or in a ground-based mission support system."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2496
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post09 Jul 2021, 17:32

I see you added a few things as well.
The answer is I don't know.

All I know is that Saab claims to be able to fuse data from onboard and ofboard sensors and integrate it with databases (perhaps threat library) and decision making aids.

Is it better than the F-35s. No, actually I don't know too but I'm leaning towards "No"

Again the comparison is not against the F-35, its against the F-16C block 50. Cause the block 70 has sensor fusion and I think even that is better.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26215
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Jul 2021, 17:41

<sigh> If I add comments to any text the convention is to put them in SQUARE BRACKETS! You can take them out. :doh:
'zero-one' "...Is it [Gripen Sense Fuze] better than the F-35s. No, actually I don't know too but I'm leaning towards "No"...

Don't lean to far and ROCK YOUR BOAT you may fall out and get into trouble in the mire of GRIPEN SUPERIOR brainwash.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Online

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1393
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post10 Jul 2021, 05:08

zero-one wrote:Thank you. But I never conpared it to the F-35's sensor fusion.

This originate from a comparison I made between the Gripen C and the F-16C block 50.

I said the block 50 has better kinematics, range and payload while the Gripen C has sensor fusion, advanced data links, great ECM and Meteror integration.

Even if it was the worst sensor fusion (i.e.only fusing radar and RWR) thats still something that the block 50 doesn't have.

You would do better to take it over to a F-16 thread. I think you could have a conversation there. About how it is nearly as good as a F-16.
Having the comparison with a F-35 is just embarrassing. You will always get major statements of it being just nonsense.
Aussie fanboy
Previous

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests