F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

JPG From: AirForces Monthly December 2020 #393 Sweden keeps Gripen C/D beyond another decade PDF attached.

PDF attached for Brazilian Gripen testing under way AirForces Monthly Dec 2020 #393 hence JPG tahdah.

GRIPEN on a war footing [there is a lot of detailed text in 8 page PDF attached]
Dec 2020 Björn Rüdén

"Dispersing its fighters across remote runways keeps the Swedish Air Force combat ready. But as Björn Rüdén repor ts, the strategy demands rapid ‘Formula 1’-style refuelling and re-arming turnarounds.

Aquila 51, wind from right, one-zero degrees, eight knots, cleared to land, short runway 21.” A column of four vehicles with trailers emerges from the forest and heads towards a clearing, while two JAS 39C Gripens from the 171st Fighter Division (Aquila) roar overhead at low altitude.

The ground vehicles are swiftly positioned to allow sufficient space for a Gripen between them. Each aircraft has its own designated turnaround and load crews. While the turnaround crew readies the aircraft to fly again, the load crew prepares the missiles that are to be hung during the pitstop. The task requires focus; each AIM-120 AMRAAM (Rb 99) missile weighs 120kg and costs millions of krona, even though these are blank training versions that lack combat functions, such as a seeker head, warhead and rocket motor.

The rapid turnaround is performed by conscripts under the watchful eye of fulltime soldiers and officers. The conscripts are familiar with Gripen maintenance back at their home base, but it was only a week earlier that they had first practised a high-pressure turnaround such as this.

Blekinge wing
The Swedish Air Force’s F 17 fleet (Blekinge flygflottilj) is based at Ronneby in southeastern Sweden. The base is home to two JAS 39 Gripen squadrons, 171, call sign Aquila, and 172, callsign Gator, as well as their two support Aircraft Maintenance Companies, 21 and 22 (Flygunderhållskompani).

For this forest exercise, parts of 21 – together with other assets from F 17 – have relocated to a former wartime air base in the middle of nowhere. No 171 did not relocate, but did fly a number of sorties each day.

The fighter squadron consists of 30 pilots and mission support officers (planning, intelligence, electronic warfare) – a typical structure for a Swedish Air Force Gripen squadron. No 171 uses both the single-seat JAS 39C, flown in this exercise, and the twinseat 39D Gripens. As a two-seater, the 39D is primarily used for Combat Readiness Training (CRT) of younger pilots....

...The Aircraft Maintenance Company consists of three platoons – two for aircraft and one for munitions and logistics – and numbers roughly 70 personnel....

...Warlike approach
Major Joakim Rasmusson, commander of 171 Stridsflygdivision, said: “To be able to fly from dispersed air bases, as pilots and a squadron, gives us an extra dimension. You don’t have the same space for manoeuvering at turnaround sites and taxiways. Technicians and equipment share the same limited space as me and my aircraft, and keeping control of the wing tips is crucial in order to avoid damage to personnel or equipment.”... [I wonder if they learn anything from AIRCRAFT CARRIER DECKS]

...Flying from a wartime air base means that the runway is about half the length compared to the one we are used to at F 17.”

Baptism of fire
On the ground, this means pilots becoming accustomed to taking off and landing on a strip measuring about 1,000m x 20m. “The training for this starts a few months after the rookie pilots arrive in the squadron by using a shortened section (marked by paint) of the main runway at F 17. [FCLP (field carrier landing practice) anyone? Buehler? Anyone?] They get their baptism of fire out here in the Swedish forests, having conducted numerous take-offs and landings back home,” said Rasmusson....

...Turnaround crews
The turnaround and load crews spring into action when the two Aquila 51 and 52 Gripens taxi into the turnaround site and shut down their RM12 engines (a version of the GE Aviation F404J, built under licence in Sweden by GKN Aerospace Engine Systems).

A chock is placed in front of the right landing gear and the Gripen is once again connected to the ground-based communications system of the ground crew panel. This panel houses the controls for the technicians to run tests on the electrical, hydraulic and weapons systems, as well as oversee the refuelling. Overall, the aircraft is easy to handle which helps to keep the turnaround time to a minimum.

Master Sergeant Kenneth Nilsson, a technician on the Gripen, said the aircraft is designed around the specific operational demands of the Flygvapnet. “For example, a very swift turnaround with rearming and refuelling, on any dispersed base, needs only one technician and six conscript mechanics. Very much like a pit-stop in Formula 1. On a normal day on the flight-line, there is only one technician and one mechanic needed to get a Gripen ready for another training flight.”

Pilot Q&A
Our interviewee pilot, with the call sign ‘PHOENIX’ (full name withheld for security reasons), arrived at 171 Stridsflygdivision in spring 2019, after conversion training on the JAS 39 Gripen with F 7 wing. He has 200 hours flying time in the Gripen and several hours on the SK 60 (Saab 105) trainer.

How was your first approach and landing on the base?
It was a rewarding and exciting experience! It was the first landing on a short runway, not only for me, but for several of us younger pilots in the squadron. It was something that we had discussed a lot and something that I really looked forward to. It got my heart beating faster, due to the fact that it was my first time on a short runway, so the margins were narrower than usual. However, proper planning and preparations served us well, so it really felt controlled all the way down.

Not surprisingly, it was how small the runway looked when approaching the wartime air base that made the biggest impact on me. When I was on my approach, I remember thinking ‘is this really going to work’? The runway is not just shorter; it is also considerably narrower, so I was trying to be very strict in staying on the centreline during the approach, feeling I had no margin for error on either side. On the ground, that feeling wasn't as noticeable. [familiar feeling for first carrier approach "what the frack?!"]

The same can be said regarding the length of the runway – just before touchdown, it felt really short. But once down and having applied the brakes, that feeling disappeared due to the braking performance of the aircraft.

What was the biggest difference when compared with landing at ‘home’?
Flying at your home base, you know all the entry points by heart and are familiar with the surrounding terrain, having acquired different aiming points during a visual approach. Flying to an unknown base like this one demands more prior planning by studying the map and approach charts. You also use the runway as a reference to estimate the distance to the air base in order to set up an adequate traffic circuit.

This is a challenge when approaching a short runway like this one, since the small size makes you believe that it is much further away than it is, possibly leading to you flying a bit too tight a circuit and not having enough time for landing preparations. [one of many optical illusions on approach/landing on sloping up/down short/long runways with also sloping up/down approach terrain - shudder night]

One of the biggest differences landing on the short runway is that you approach with a higher angle of attack, known as alpha, creating more lift since you want to land as slowly as possible. You need to be precise in your flying because of this, since there is a risk that landing with too high alpha will result in the aft of the aircraft hitting the ground when touching down.

But it is not only the runway that has smaller dimensions; the same can be said about the taxiways and turnaround sites. This, combined with several large vehicles and personnel on the site forced me to taxi more carefully and be more aware of the surroundings when manoeuvring the aircraft. During this phase the co-operation with the ground crew is crucial. [on a carrier deck one trusts them completely - there are limits however because the pilot is responsible for whatever happens negatively]

How was your first take-off from the short runway?
I’m used to a runway more than twice the size, so it will come as no surprise that the runway felt very short when I was lining up the aircraft. As a result, I lined up as far back on the runway as possible, making sure I did not waste any of the Tarmac. [nothing more useless than the RUNWAY behind you] Then you spool up the engine to maximum before releasing the brakes, while using full afterburner, which is always nice.

One thing you have to take into consideration when taking off from such a small runway is the decision point in case of an aborted take-off . Since there may not be enough runway left to make a full stop if a malfunction occurs, you have to be mentally prepared to continue the take-off and analyse and solve the problem mid-air, before coming back to land.”

Photo: "Serial 39293 from F 7 Wing ‘Spider 12’ about to take off from short runway 21"

Source: AirForces Monthly Dec 2020 #393

Developing secure relationships [2 page PDF attached]
Dec 2020 Craig Hoyle

"Saab’s chief executive Micael Johansson explains how the company’s successes are sustained with its customers..."

Photo: "Gripen E will enter service with Swedish air force and export customer Brazil"

Source: Flight International December 2020

The MFS-EW was designed with an AESA architecture, which means it can engage many threats at the same time, including ground-based surveillance or fire-control radars, with unprecedented accuracy (as low as 0.1º within a 360º radius).

Interesting.

I guess you have no clue what Loke is talking about.
None of this shows that the F/A-18 S/W has anything but a monolitic architecture.
You can add stuff, but that still needs a full requalification of the entire S/W package.
The mux bus makes the requalification easier, but does not allow you to skip it.
Assume you want to change the background colour of the display from black to your favourite shade of pink.
That is part of the same software package that controls the ground collision avoidance system, so you have to prove that this does not affect that. That means a lot of testing, documentation etc so introducing pink will take months.
Not so on Gripen, because of the S/W architecture. You can update the background colour several times per day.
The architecture allows any Gripen customer to add their own stuff on the hardpoints as long as the communication buses follow the standards. SAAB does not need to be involved.
Not so on the US fighters. The F-35 program is considering rewriting their 20-30 million lines of code to adopt a similar approach,but that is going to take time.
Right now, Israel can add stuff to the F-35 but noone else. They have created a layer on top of the F-35 S/W that allows Apps but the US needs to qualify the F-35 software to work with the Israeli stuff continuously. Not really the same thing.

very selective post, your ability to cherry pick is superb. Well done and you truly understand the F-35 program and exactly what is happening. good grief

I am not going to go down the software rabbit hole because it could go on and on for pages (hey it still might!) . The point being this is not unique, and I think that's already been fairly well demonstrated.

F-22 has an Integrated Flight Propulsion Control (IFPC) bus for the engines and flight controls, a VMS bus for most of the other air vehicle subsystems to communicate on, and an Avionics bus for those systems. Not saying this makes it any easier to qualify software updates, but they are multiple bus systems.

Perhaps Saab's propaganda arm in the future can better specify what they mean and share more details in the future. for an airplane that so stunningly easy to fix and maintain I hear and see so little about it. Like I would love to know how long current updates are taking on Gripen C vs E. Would offer some real perspective. Isntead I'm told "easily upgradable." and then they have a software revolution with Gripen E and its the same schpeil. Its always the same Schpiel

Again you show that you have no clue what is the issue.
Having a bus system or not is totally irrelevant to the software architecture.

The important thing is that the Gripen functionality can be modified, extended or corrected several times per day,
The F-35 functionality can be modified, extended or corrected a few times per year.
Customers can extend the Gripen functionality without SAAB being involved.
Even Israel cannot extend the functionality of the F-35 without US involvement.

Well, we can try another.
Part of the latest generation cockpit of the new Brazilian Air Force fighter Gripen NG, the wide area display - WAD - optimizes the presentation of high resolution symbols/images, and allows operation by joystick (HOTAS) and/or directly on the screen (touchscreen). Software applications are designed to increase aircraft capability through data fusion, and increase view of the combat arena (ground and air targets), simplifying the pilot's decision-making process and making aircraft operation more efficient.
This is from the firm making the WAD.
https://www.ael.com.br/en/wad.html

Look! Which part of my previous post you didn't get??

I never said that the Gripen E display isn't touchscreen, did I?

What I did say was that the Gripen E touch commands (on the display of course) ARE LIMITED! From the video that I shared (and which you seem to continue to ignore) the touch commands are limited to selecting portals. And no, there's nothing in your last link that you shared that says otherwise.

Capiche now or do I have to draw you a picture?

The whole User Interface of Gripen can be changed between flights, so what is available for one pilot, may be very different for the next pilot, much like one Linux user uses KDE and another uses Gnome.
The important part is the quality of the touchscreen, and the processor performance.
If the hardware is capable, the software can be improved much easier in the Gripen.

The F-35 uses infrared touchscreen technology which is really old fashioned and does not support reliable multitouch like an iphone. It does make it easy to use a glove.
The capacitive touchscreen used on iphones (which by the way violated existing patents) is much better for control but does not allow for big airgaps, so gloves cannot be thick.
The kind of touchscreen used on Gripen is not official, so the question whether it is multitouch is interesting.

The important thing is that the Gripen functionality can be modified, extended or corrected several times per day,
The F-35 functionality can be modified, extended or corrected a few times per year.

That's true at least for the F-16, and most current USAF aircraft overall.

DWG: Briefly, what sort of improvement could you get that you wouldn’t be able to get on an F-16?

General Brown: Open mission systems. Being able - if I can actually have additional computing power and I can update code very quickly. So having flown the F-16, and you wait for an OFP.
I forget what the acronym stands for. Operational Flight Profile I believe is what it stands for. We have to wait for those and it's every couple of years.

I was just at [Kessler One]* yesterday and they said instead of waiting a year and a half, you could do this within a matter of minutes by updating the code on the airplane and particularly if you saw a new threat, versus the way we’ve done things in the past. You don’t have that in the F-16 today. You don’t have that in a number of our aircraft today. That’s where we need to go. So you’re using software to change our approaches and stay one step ahead of our adversary. Even if the airplane isn’t changed, the airplane actually changes because you’re able to push more information through it, change how it reacts to threats. That’s the aspect that we don’t have today in an F-16, for example.

*should be Kessel Run

https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.gwu ... -JR.-1.pdf

Another article about Kessel Run and Brown.
https://kesselrun.af.mil/news/Kessel-Ru ... rview.html

F-35 Mission Systems Design is described here on pages 3-4. "Layered software design" is one short simplification.

The strategy for developing the avionics system was based upon a block buildup strategy. It was founded on basic
warfighting capabilities and then built into the most advanced fighter weapons system currently in service. The most
fundamental elements were developed first, and then the design moved to higher levels of capability. In this way, the
team reduced the risk of software development produced by having a single large software release. This strategy was
adapted from previous tactical fighter programs, such as the F-16, and more recently, the F-22. Those programs
demonstrated that it is essential to break the software development into manageable blocks to reduce the complexity
and cost of testing. Incremental releases also provide more of an opportunity to manage requirements creep and
incorporate technology changes that directly benefit the warfighting capability. This was evident in the F-35 program’s
ability to implement additional weapons (e.g., GBU-39) and capabilities (e.g., operational test support changes) to
support emerging requirements. The approach is structured as three development blocks that establish the basic flight
control systems and essential mission systems before building up mission capability

System Architecture
It was recognized early in the concept development phase that the architecture of the mission systems would be
key to the program’s success. To succeed, many challenges had to be faced to develop the right architecture. One was
that the computing resources needed for the full set of capabilities could not fit within the power, weight, volume, and
thermal limitations of the air vehicle using available technology. Another was that the long development cycle and
initial low-rate production was expected to result in diminishing manufacturing source (DMS) problems. In addition,
the aircraft needed to be easily adaptable to support the unique needs of multiple countries. Further, it needed to be
unclassified on the production line and on the ramp to avoid increased production and sustainment costs. Beyond this,
it also needed to operate in future battlespaces where the movement of data at multiple levels would be key to
interoperability.
The plan for overcoming computing resource and DMS challenges was to execute multiple technology refreshes
of the computers during development. The processing update would allow Moore’s law to take effect, providing
increased processing capability over time that would fit within the limitations of the air vehicle. The updates would
also allow updates to mitigate DMS and validate that the application software was independent of the underlying
processor.
To achieve the goal of making the application software independent of the processor changes, three design
approaches were used. The first approach (Fig. 3) was to layer the software on top of commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS)
operating systems, under the assumption that the virtual platform would not change.

The second approach was to use rate-based processing for all threads when timing and latency were critical. This
approach would achieve constant system-level timing, even with faster processing. Also, it would enable analyzing
the system and proving that it was schedulable using rate-monotonic theory. Both benefits supported easier integration,
reduced regression testing, and supported airworthiness and safety certification.
The third approach was to use messages for communication among all application software components, as well
as components and subsystems [1]. This created controlled interfaces among the components and enabled moving
applications to different processors without impacting the software. The approach contributed to solving
interoperability and adapting the software for multiple countries. With the clearly defined interfaces and
communication paths in the system, it was possible to control data paths using the trusted computing base. This
enabled isolating data access for specific address spaces and ensured that the application remained at the designed
security level for a specific datalink. Further, combining the messaging and access control with a COTS operating
system with a high assurance level made it possible to design write-down applications for each datalink.
The capability was then advanced to interoperate with multiple participants in the battlespace at different
operational levels and message formats. From this, the messaging and access control was partitioned to the external
communications domain. This provided a broker for data on and off the aircraft, ensuring the correct classification
level and translating the external data into formats consistent with internal data. It also transformed internal data into
the message formats and needs of the external links.

https://sustainability.lockheedmartin.c ... cation.pdf

The important thing is that the Gripen functionality can be modified, extended or corrected several times per day,
The F-35 functionality can be modified, extended or corrected a few times per year.
Customers can extend the Gripen functionality without SAAB being involved.
Even Israel cannot extend the functionality of the F-35 without US involvement.

That's a nice claim, but very different in reality. Gripen E's first ground tax was back in 2016 or 2017? The first flight was in 2019? That doesn't sound like something they are able to correct several times a day, espeically since it's basically a scaled up Gripen C. You'd think putting together the flight software would be easy. Yet, it's taking the Gripen years to update.

Again you show that you have no clue what is the issue.
Having a bus system or not is totally irrelevant to the software architecture.

The important thing is that the Gripen functionality can be modified, extended or corrected several times per day,
The F-35 functionality can be modified, extended or corrected a few times per year.
Customers can extend the Gripen functionality without SAAB being involved.
Even Israel cannot extend the functionality of the F-35 without US involvement.

Just to complement that magitsu said above and you can read in his post, the F-35's architecture is at least just as open as the Gripen E/F. Actually I'm more than willing to bet that the F-35 architecture is even more open since its technology it totally proprietary and/or build specifically for the F-35 while with the Gripen most of it's components are COTS and far less advanced than those in the F-35 which means that the Gripen's update capability will be already limited on this alone.

Regarding the "customers can extend the Gripen functionality without SAAB being involved while the F-35 customers can't" bla, bla, bla, I believe that I've already explained this is a past post but I'll repeat it again:
- The only reason why a F-35 customer can't update the F-35's functionality without LM being involved is because the F-35's technology is protected or putting into another perspective the reason why customers can't update F-35 functionalities at will isn't because it isn't possible (because it's quite possible) but because the US (including government, LM, etc...) doesn't want to give this "free will" ability to their customers and this is quite understandable - The F-35 isn't a bunch of COTS components "blued together" with some software like in the Gripen E! Everything from ALL hardware to ALL software in the F-35 was build from the ground up and IS TOP-SECRET, capiche?

And again you show that you have no clue what this 'issue' is all about.

The whole User Interface of Gripen can be changed between flights, so what is available for one pilot, may be very different for the next pilot, much like one Linux user uses KDE and another uses Gnome.

Just like the F-16 already does since at least a couple decades ago!
Again Saab/Gripen E motto:

"too little, too late"

The important part is the quality of the touchscreen, and the processor performance.
If the hardware is capable, the software can be improved much easier in the Gripen.

The F-35 uses infrared touchscreen technology which is really old fashioned and does not support reliable multitouch like an iphone. It does make it easy to use a glove.
The capacitive touchscreen used on iphones (which by the way violated existing patents) is much better for control but does not allow for big airgaps, so gloves cannot be thick.
The kind of touchscreen used on Gripen is not official, so the question whether it is multitouch is interesting.

Lets see if I got the above right:
First you imply that the Gripen E touchscreen is 'high/top quality' and it should only take a software update to bring more functions to the touchscreen but yet it's touch functions are LIMITED to a basically 3 functions and the display really needs 'tons of buttons' around it in order to be interfaced.
But then you come up with the BullShit that the F-35 touchscreen uses old technology (and then you justify this with a bunch of BS arguments such as "iphones patents" or whatever) but you forget that it's the Gripen E touchscreen that is LIMITED while the F-35's touchscreen is FAR, FAR MORE CAPABLE than the Gripen E's touchscreen

Did you noticed that the F-35's display does NOT NEED or has buttons around it in order to be interfaced??

You can't claim that the touchscreen which is FAR MORE CAPABLE (F-35) is older technology than one which is FAR MORE LIMITED (Gripen E)!
Not that it matters much since it seems to be well proven that the Gripen E touchscreen is very limited function-wise, period!

Perhaps what is forgotten also is that EVERY F-35 needs to 'LOOK' the same as every other F-35 including the ADIR, which even though will have extra soft bits will still LOOK THE SAME so that the interoperability of ALL the F-35s is maintained.

For some context rather than the RELENTLESS SAAB Gripen PR about how good they are <sarc> being so inventive & all. I guess ONE DAY the SEA GRIPEN will be able to do this also? PDF of Singapore F-15SG Late 2016 ROADie also. How does the GRIPPY fare in the snow/ice on their roads? ONLY AN ARREST WILL DO. Do they have an emergency arrest hook like the F-35A? Do they have a brake chute like some snowy F-35As? Questions questions questions.

USMC F-35C ARRESTED LANDING [PDF attached]
Feb 2021 Combat Aircraft

"...The demonstration spanned more than 1000 miles, and the aircraft was refueled and loaded with ordnance within a half hour...."

Photo: "The marines’ demonstration in Twentynine Palms, California, showed that the new arrested landing capability will allow the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II to land on smaller runways anywhere in the world US Marine Corps / Cpl Cervantes"

Source: Combat Aircraft Journal February 2021 Volume 22 No 2

The USAF wants IN on ACE (been cooking for some time but without the HOOKs ala Grippy)
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/swi ... ce-knives/ Swiss Air Force Knives 19 Feb 2021

Saab Viggen was really something when it came to STOL capabilities. Thrust reverser in a fighter jet was pretty damn cool. They went backwards with Saab Gripen, although it has decent STOL capabilities. But I haven't seen anything that shows it being any better than any of the competitors. I'd argue that with weapons and fuel, it will have significantly longer take-off distance than more powerful aircraft like other Eurocanards and say F-35A. All Eurocanards use their canards as airbrakes during landing and F-35 and Super Hornet use their large tails for similar purpose. Landing distances seem to be quite similar.

Saab Viggen STOL:

How do the non tailhook aircraft fare on snow/ice/wet/crosswind runways? Having a hook for a short field arrest is cool. I'm referring to 'austere' locs NOT ordinary airfield ops although as we know arresting is always a nice emergency option.

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.

Just happened the online version (I guess URL changed?) https://www.flightglobal.com/farnboroug ... 73.article