F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[spazsinbad]

Meandering as one does through this mighty GRIPEN thread I'm wondering if people were/are able to download PDFs that are referenced. Perhaps at a time it was possible, maybe NOW not possible as a lot of info just disappears, let me know.

THE FUTURE IS MADE IN INDIA 27 Jul 2010 [about making the Gripen in INDIA PDF attached below]

[charlielima223]

I'm digging out old GRIPPIN' material (yes I know) by request so apologies in advance if some inadvertantly repeated here:

Joint effort [Content preview – Subscribe to IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly for full article] [5 page PDF attached below]
11 May 2016 JANEs

Gripen E/F
From a distance the Gripen E may resemble earlier Gripens in appearance, but this all-new jet represents the cutting edge of multirole fighter development. While Saab spokesperson Jenny Nilsson told IHS Jane's on 1 February that the Gripen E is due to fly late 2016, a converted D model testbed aircraft equipped with E model systems has been flying since 2012. Strikingly, early computer simulations of aerial combat reportedly show the Gripen E outperforming the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, equalling the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor in many respects, and proving more than a match for the larger and heavier Sukhoi Su-35...."

Source: http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/2 ... effort.pdf

That is the first time I've heard that. The F-22, F-35, and Su-35 must have had every single handicap placed on them in that computer simulation to make that outcome.

[F-16ADF]

"Strikingly, early computer simulations of aerial combat reportedly show the Gripen E outperforming the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, equalling the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor in many respects, and proving more than a match for the larger and heavier Sukhoi Su-35...."


Here are some performance specs on the original light Gripen A. First one is from AFM near 20yrs ago. Second is from a mag that I cannot recall the name (was at a local bookstore killing time a few months ago). Both are near similar so I think even the latter is still referencing the A and not the C (since the C is heavier than the A ----performance should generally go down).

(These numbers also match the -39 specs from CAM and AW&ST circa early 2000's.)



Acceleration and Climb are not particularly impressive. And given that the E is a few thousand pounds heavier than the A and C, the Gripen's great initial turn rate should also go down since the E is still using basically the same sized wing.

[hornetfinn]

I'm digging out old GRIPPIN' material (yes I know) by request so apologies in advance if some inadvertantly repeated here:

Joint effort [Content preview – Subscribe to IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly for full article] [5 page PDF attached below]
11 May 2016 JANEs

Gripen E/F
From a distance the Gripen E may resemble earlier Gripens in appearance, but this all-new jet represents the cutting edge of multirole fighter development. While Saab spokesperson Jenny Nilsson told IHS Jane's on 1 February that the Gripen E is due to fly late 2016, a converted D model testbed aircraft equipped with E model systems has been flying since 2012. Strikingly, early computer simulations of aerial combat reportedly show the Gripen E outperforming the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, equalling the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor in many respects, and proving more than a match for the larger and heavier Sukhoi Su-35...."

Source: http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/2 ... effort.pdf

That is the first time I've heard that. The F-22, F-35, and Su-35 must have had every single handicap placed on them in that computer simulation to make that outcome.

True. When Gripen MS21/NG/E got evaluated by the Swiss in 2009, it was found to be less capable than their F/A-18C/Ds were at the time of evaluation in many important respects. EF Typhoon and especially Dassault Rafale were much better in almost everything. There is just no way that Gripen E somehow suddenly transformed into something that could get even close to F-35 or F-22. I could see them being decent against Su-35 because of Meteor, IRIS-T and AESA radar along with good EW and countermeasures system and lower RCS. This assuming Sukhoi has current R-77, R-73 and PESA radar.

[XanderCrews]

Ok everyone, I wanted to post the much talked about and debated CPFH. I'm going to post sources and the year they were made. I know that some of these have been posted throughout the thread I wanted to condense them in one post. I ask and encourage anyone with any other data to please contribute it. Preferably with a link and other such references. These are in no particular order, its a list of what I have encountered the last decade+.

The world famous Janes study:



$4700, 2012

$6,300-7,800, 2017

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/south-a ... -poachers/

Operational costs estimates have also witnessed significant escalation. In 2010, company representatives stated the Gripen NG’s per flying hour cost would be around US $5,000. Yet Saab has now increased this to US$10,000, and the Swiss military has estimated their costs at approximately US$21,000. , 2013

https://skiesmag.com/news/18883-fighter ... ipen-html/

The life-cycle costs of the Gripen compare very favorably with other fighters, according to Kemp. “At $3,500 to $4,000 per hour, our operating cost is about half that of an F-16,” he added. The Eurofighter, he insisted, costs “much more” to operate. , 2006

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... g-exercise

The draft also includes the operating costs: CHF 102 million per year (CHF 6 million included for the operation of real estate). The operating costs per hour are not explicitly mentioned in the template. Taking into account the listed annual costs for personnel (24 million), maintenance (51 million) and fuel (21 million), these are significantly more than Saab presented to journalists in previous presentations. Switzerland bases the calculation of the operating costs per hour on a flight operating time of 180 hours per year. With 22 gripen this results in costs of 24'242 francs per flight hour. On the occasion of a presentation in Sweden, Saab stated a price of less than CHF 10,000. There is still a need for explanation here. = $26,000, 2012

https://www.bernerzeitung.ch/schweiz/st ... y/18471087

sadly this one is behind a paywall.

Total financial expenses in accordance with the submitted draft contract after conversion to
ensure the 10-year operation of aircraft F-16 Block 70/72 is about the same as the total cost of providing
10 years of operation of aircraft JAS-39C/D.

Not CPFH, per se. Slovakia report:

https://rokovania.gov.sk/RPO/Material/1702/1



Fun fact, when the infamous janes study was published in 2012 that claimed the F-16 was $7,000 the USAF said in official documents the F-16 was $22,000 the next year... I highly doubt any of the aircraft rates on that chart are accurate at all. (but most already know this now)

More:

The Swedish Air Force
has quoted a cost per flying hour for the
Gripen at SEK 48,000, which equates to
$7,500 — including fuel.

From the july 2016 Combat aircraft Magazine 28 page Gripen supplement at posted by Spaz

[spazsinbad]

On page 22 of this thread there appears to be a 4.3 year gap in dates of posts. I presume nothing is missing - gap is OK?

[XanderCrews]

I'm digging out old GRIPPIN' material (yes I know) by request so apologies in advance if some inadvertantly repeated here:

Joint effort [Content preview – Subscribe to IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly for full article] [5 page PDF attached below]
11 May 2016 JANEs

Gripen E/F
From a distance the Gripen E may resemble earlier Gripens in appearance, but this all-new jet represents the cutting edge of multirole fighter development. While Saab spokesperson Jenny Nilsson told IHS Jane's on 1 February that the Gripen E is due to fly late 2016, a converted D model testbed aircraft equipped with E model systems has been flying since 2012. Strikingly, early computer simulations of aerial combat reportedly show the Gripen E outperforming the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, equalling the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor in many respects, and proving more than a match for the larger and heavier Sukhoi Su-35...."

Source: http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/2 ... effort.pdf

That is the first time I've heard that. The F-22, F-35, and Su-35 must have had every single handicap placed on them in that computer simulation to make that outcome.

you gotta love that qualifying language "reportedly" in a "early computer simulation"

yes its not hearsay, if I say "reportedly"

[spazsinbad]

FARNBOROUGH: Saab plots bright future for Gripen programme 13 Jul 2010 Bartosz Glowacki https://www.flightglobal.com/farnboroug ... 73.article

Nowadays I cannot see this frightglobular article because I'm unwashed and unclean and not subservient to requirements.

Attached is a six page PDF made from this article at the time (& I was still then an UNsubSUBscriber) <sigh> my interest is the SEA GRIPEN however even today there is STILL NOT A LOT TO SEE with some curious claims highlighted therein.

[spazsinbad]

Searching on 'JOHNSON' this article was not found however the graphic looks familiar so if it is a repeat then... whatever.

Gripen E to feature next-generation electronic warfare capability [2 page PDF of article attached]
12 May 2017 Reuben F Johnson, Linkoping - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

"...One of the standout improvements is the Gripen E's electronic warfare (EW) system, which takes advantage of the aircraft's fully-digital architecture. This and the more powerful jammer-emitter capability, which is made possible by the integrated set of jamming transmitters, radar warning receivers, and the Selex AESA radar set, make for a more powerful EW profile.

"The configuration of the EW system for the Gripen E allows you to focus the jamming signal in a narrower band, so the signal itself is stronger and directed at an individual specific threat," said one of the Gripen test pilots. The previous EW system produced a broader frequency band signal, which was designed to counter several threats at once.

The Gripen E's new EW system uses three types of signal generators to obscure the existence of the aircraft or cause confusion about its location and/or existence so that an adversary cannot choose a proper firing solution. The three types of signal generators are Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM), Doppler, and Noise. DRFM emulates the signal of the radar that makes contact with the aircraft and then mirrors it back so that it appears to the operator on the other side that the radar has encountered nothing."

Graphic: "The Gripen E's electronic warfare (EW) system takes advantage of the aircraft's fully-digital architecture.(Saab)" & "Improvements to the Gripen E's EW suite make for a more powerful EW profile. (Saab)"

Source: http://www.janes.com/article/70320/grip ... capability

[spazsinbad]

OLD 2016 'JAS Hands' an eight page PDF of the two articles referenced below is attached aslo (yes I know) below below....

THE GRIPEN EVOLUTION Jul 2016 Combat Aircraft Magazine
"Combat Aircraft presents a detailed view of the JAS 39 Gripen as this fascinating type moves into a new era with the advent of the Gripen E...."
&
‘THE SMART FIGHTER’ Jul 2016 Combat Aircraft Magazine
"Combat Aircraft reports from Linköping on the roll-out of the new Gripen E — the latest evolution of the Saab JAS 39...."

[spazsinbad]

My interest in the Gripen has always been for the Naval Aviation 'potential' (never to be realised it would appear). <sigh>
Article below quoted 10 Feb 2018 but the original article is no longer at URL hence the PDF - note original date 2013.

NEW ORIGINAL URL : https://www.saab.com/markets/india/stor ... -air-power

Original post here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=11311&p=387871&hilit=gripping#p387871

SAAB SEA GRIPEN – THE FUTURE OF CARRIER BORNE AIR POWER [4 page PDF below]
06 May 2013 SAAB PR

"Saab has long considered the potential for its Gripen fighter to be adapted for maritime use from STOBAR and CATOBAR aircraft carriers. The inherent strength built into the airframe to permit regular road based/short field operations, the excellent forward field of view on approach, the outsanding handling characterisics at all speeds gave confdence that Gripen had all the basics to build upon. Of the ten critical criteria that all carrier based aircraft require, Gripen possessed seven.[?] Since 2004, increasingly detailed work to prove this concept has borne out the original thinking – that Gripen will indeed make a first class carrier based fighter, retaining all the capability and cost efficiencies of the land based Gripen E/F. The final detailed design work, conducted by linked teams in London and Linköping, was completed in August 2012....

...Operational Costs
Based on open statistics from the Swedish Air Force, the calculated cost per flying hour is approximately 4,000 USD including fuel.

Availability statistics
Gripen has a Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of 7.6 and a Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) of 2.5. This means that Gripen on average is able to fly 7.6 hours before a fault occurs, and when a fault occurs it takes 2.5 hours to repair it. These figures are unsurpassed in the fighter aircraft indusry."

Source: https://saab.com/es/region/india/about- ... air-power/ NOW: https://www.saab.com/markets/india/stor ... -air-power

[spazsinbad]

Not sure if this 6 page PDF is a repeat - blast from da past - 1999 (we're going to party like it's) HOW TO FLY DA GRIPPER.

Gripen Key to Sweden's Air Defense Force
06 Dec 1999 David M. North - AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY

"Quick turnaround time, improved information warfare capability give Saab fighter an edge against larger foes...

...The Gripen is equipped with carbon brakes on all three landing gear and can take off and land in approximately 500-600 meters (l,640-1,968 ft.)...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... Gripen.pdf

[hornetfinn]

My interest in the Gripen has always been for the Naval Aviation 'potential' (never to be realised it would appear). <sigh>
Article below quoted 10 Feb 2018 but the original article is no longer at URL hence the PDF - note original date 2013.

NEW ORIGINAL URL : https://www.saab.com/markets/india/stor ... -air-power

Original post here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=11311&p=387871&hilit=gripping#p387871

SAAB SEA GRIPEN – THE FUTURE OF CARRIER BORNE AIR POWER [4 page PDF below]
06 May 2013 SAAB PR

...Operational Costs
Based on open statistics from the Swedish Air Force, the calculated cost per flying hour is approximately 4,000 USD including fuel.

They should've added "and nothing else" there...

Availability statistics
Gripen has a Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of 7.6 and a Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) of 2.5. This means that Gripen on average is able to fly 7.6 hours before a fault occurs, and when a fault occurs it takes 2.5 hours to repair it. These figures are unsurpassed in the fighter aircraft indusry."

I love it when they boast that and it can easily be demonstrated to be untrue. Super Hornet has demonstrated better figures:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 12_sar.pdf

So Gripen can do 7.6 hours for MTBF when Super Hornet demonstrated 10.0 hours in 2012... "Mean Time Between Operational Mission Failure" is close enough to MTBF but includes also software failures but is possibly less strict on minor hardware failures depending on exact definition.

For F-35 requirements are about equal to what Gripen figures are above while including a lot of things that aren't included in Gripen figures (targeting pod, EO DAS, MADL/Link-16 among some other things).

According to most critical source possible: https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub ... f35jsf.pdf

Mean Flight Hours Between Critical Failure (MFHBCF) includes all failures that render the aircraft unsafe to fly or would prevent the completion of a defined F-35 mission

They give MFHBCF as 12 (in F-35B) to 20 (in F-35A). MTTR is given as 2.5 to 3 depending on version, although they are not currently meeting that criteria. Currently they are in the region of 5 to 6, although that includes all the early production F-35s and more complex F-35Bs, which require more work.

[ricnunes]

Bah, just wait for the SPACE Gripen!

[spazsinbad]

night Gripens [3 page PDF of article attached below]
July 2015 Björn Hellenius and Sara Hellenius; photos: Björn Hellenius

"Night operations have never been more relevant, and striking under the cover of darkness is a skill at which the Swedish Air Force excels. Combat Aircraft reports from F 21 wing at Luleå....

...the Swedish ‘road base’ system was disbanded after the end of the Cold War, the flying squadrons have been tied to static bases and the maintenance crews’ wide competence has narrowed. To prepare and maintain a combat aircraft under austere conditions on a service road in the woods is no longer as straightforward as it used to be....

...Lt Col Gustafsson concludes: ‘The big difference today is that technology has made it possible to visually identify targets, both on the ground and in the air, during night-time, but also that you can fly really low. It’s actually possible to fly terrain-following, even though in training situations you always scout an area beforehand, to make sure nothing that would be difficult to detect has suddenly emerged, such as a 4G mast or a windmill that hasn’t yet been published. Even air refueling in the dark has been tested, but it’s not yet in use by our squadrons’. LED lighting may be introduced on the Gripen refueling probe in the future. The pilot’s helmet-mounted display (HMD) was introduced at the MS19 software standard and is already in operation with Sweden and South Africa. Used in combination with the short-range IRIS-T air-to- air missile, it ‘gives great possibilities in the fighter role,’ says Gustafsson."

Source: Combat Aircraft Monthly Magazine July 2015 Volume 16 No 7