Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Halo
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Apr 2009
    • 212

    @maurobaggio, you are correct, if Sweden would have known about the fall of Soviet union in 1982 we certainly would have ordered 100 Gripen "NG ish" with F414 and not planned for 370 Gripen A's

    Comment

    • Halo
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Apr 2009
      • 212

      An often overlooked aspect of the good old Swiss report, is that Gripen MS 18 (17?) was estimated almost an par with Rafale in terms of EW.... massive upgrades since MS 17 and lots of more to come incl GaN, multifuctional antennas and BriteCloud, wide angle AEASA, directional data links..

      Comment

      • Halo
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Apr 2009
        • 212

        @ alexz, due to Gripens small size and moderate power that results in a good price performance ratio, its often label as generally low performance. In many aspects its completely wrong,l

        Gripen E,
        Flight performance
        Instantaneous turn rate, G load, wing loading, very close to best in class, good range with light loads, moderate supercruise capacity, sustained turnrate and power but ****ty capacity to haul heavy loads long distances

        Signature
        Updated airframe with expected improvements, new pylons on the way, small engine with fuel cooling of aircraft, new missiles that hopefully has smaller signature

        Operations
        Best in class operational tempo and flexibility

        Avionics
        GaN based EW suite, directional datalinks, IR based MAWS with imaging capacity, potentially dualband IRST, BriteCloud, pretty good size wide angle AESA, SATcom

        Weapons,
        First meteor operator, well proven low cost to integrate new weapons

        Business model,
        Excel in core Technologies, plug and play for other parts, no reinvent the Wheel (Rafale 100% unneccessarely made 100% (?)in France), no multi national discussion club (Euro Fighter), all new Tech development Project with ambition of master of all trades and funds(F35)

        Comment

        • Urban
          Rank 4 Registered User
          • Jan 2015
          • 121

          Originally posted by alexz View Post
          Gripen performance is only exceptional when being looked through a very small set of variables.

          For example why just look at "supercruise" capability for for air superiority missions? Even the supercruise capability is only attainable by the NG on the coldest days of sweedish winter. Could it possibly supercruise in not brazilian tropical climate? Also not said is the dogfighting/maneuverbility of the Gripen with actual fuel load to return to base from that mission range. Would the Gripen dogfight w/o afterburner? Would its theoretical range be moot with afterburner on dogfights?

          I have yet to see a Gripen e/f/ng quoted range with max weapons load; available weapons load with maximum fuel; or proof of supercruise in hot climates.

          If you compare overall performance of the gripen even with say f-16v, you can see that it is not really a cost effective fighter for the price they are selling those right now.

          Compare performance.....you mean that gripen e with its low rcs and better radar will see the f16 long way before a f16 will see it and get meteors in its butt ? Sure. Even gripen c does that.
          You mean 40-50m$ ? Well, its a completely new built fighter, so that's the price you have to pay.

          And about the load...gripen has very good wing loading it can carry what it is said to carry. 800NM Air to Ground.
          http://saab.com/globalassets/commerc...n-2015_low.pdf
          Last edited by Urban; 11th February 2016, 08:55.

          Comment

          • hopsalot
            Senior Member
            • Aug 2012
            • 3166

            Originally posted by Halo View Post
            @ alexz, due to Gripens small size and moderate power that results in a good price performance ratio, its often label as generally low performance. In many aspects its completely wrong,l

            Gripen E,
            Flight performance
            Instantaneous turn rate, G load, wing loading, very close to best in class, good range with light loads, moderate supercruise capacity, sustained turnrate and power but ****ty capacity to haul heavy loads long distances
            How on earth is M1.1 with a minimal air to air loadout a "moderate" supercruise capacity? Again, march 1.1 with four air to air missiles and no tanks is not all that useful a capability.

            Comment

            • Halo
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Apr 2009
              • 212

              Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
              How on earth is M1.1 with a minimal air to air loadout a "moderate" supercruise capacity? Again, march 1.1 with four air to air missiles and no tanks is not all that useful a capability.
              You might be right even if I don't think so, lets remember this and see in a year or two. With the proven performance of Gripen Demo I do expect M1,2 for Gripen E with 6 aam no EFTs, given new fuselage, air inlets and improved weight

              Comment

              • Vnomad
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • May 2011
                • 2859

                Originally posted by Halo View Post
                You might be right even if I don't think so, lets remember this and see in a year or two. With the proven performance of Gripen Demo I do expect M1,2 for Gripen E with 6 aam no EFTs, given new fuselage, air inlets and improved weight
                Err.. no. As I recall, the Gripen Demo had the same F414 engine, but weighed 900 kg less than the Gripen E.

                Comment

                • Halo
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Apr 2009
                  • 212

                  Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                  Err.. no. As I recall, the Gripen Demo had the same F414 engine, but weighed 900 kg less than the Gripen E.
                  That's the next wait and see, known weight increases is at least 175 of avionics & engine over Gripen C, and then SAAB has made some ambitious claims regarding big weight reductions of the frame itself. I would be surprised if weight really turned out to be 8 000kg for Gripen E.

                  Comment

                  • alexz
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 325

                    The problem with all the plus points of the gripen e/f is that it could not be attained in the same time.

                    If it carries max fuel for max range it could not carry the max weapon load.

                    If it carried max weapon load it cannot be filled with max fuel load.

                    If it is forced to dogfight with heavy weapons load, it won't be as maneuverable as say a typhoon.

                    All the advanced EW/avionics on the gripen e/f is not exclusive to the Gripen. Something similar could also be fitted to other fighter aircraft.

                    In the end, it is still a light fighter with a small engine. I see the gripen as a "gucci" light fighter that should be realistically compared to the tejas/jf-17/fa-50, not with typhoons/rafales.

                    Comment

                    • Spyhawk
                      Rank 42 Registered User
                      • Dec 2011
                      • 175

                      Originally posted by Halo View Post
                      An often overlooked aspect of the good old Swiss report, is that Gripen MS 18 (17?) was estimated almost an par with Rafale in terms of EW.... massive upgrades since MS 17 and lots of more to come incl GaN, multifuctional antennas and BriteCloud, wide angle AEASA, directional data links..
                      True. Dassault is known to have one of the best EW suite with spectra, it was surprising to see Gripen not too far behind. Afaik, Gripen of Swiss evaluation was in MS 18 standard.

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	1783329940.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	149.9 KB
ID:	3666761

                      Comment

                      • Spitfire9
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jul 2008
                        • 2846

                        Originally posted by alexz View Post
                        In the end, it is still a light fighter with a small engine. I see the gripen as a "gucci" light fighter that should be realistically compared to the tejas/jf-17/fa-50, not with typhoons/rafales.
                        Sure, not as good as Typhoon/Rafale but better than Tejas/jf-17/fa-50, isn't it? I think it shares that position with F-16.
                        Sum ergo cogito

                        Comment

                        • alexz
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 325

                          Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
                          Sure, not as good as Typhoon/Rafale but better than Tejas/jf-17/fa-50, isn't it? I think it shares that position with F-16.
                          I would definitely choose a f-16v over all the gripen e/f hype.

                          The main issue here is, the next 4-5 years is the only time those 4th gen fighters got to sell their hardware. After that, it would be foolish not to get something like the f-35, kfx or the j-31. If I want to buy a new fighter now, I would go for a tried and tested airplane with mature upgrades like.the f-16v. If I want a lightweight fighter for basic air policing task, a cheap fa-50/jf-17 is more than enough, basically could do 80% of what a Gripen e/f could do at less than half of the price.

                          Comment

                          • Urban
                            Rank 4 Registered User
                            • Jan 2015
                            • 121

                            Originally posted by alexz View Post
                            I would definitely choose a f-16v over all the gripen e/f hype.

                            The main issue here is, the next 4-5 years is the only time those 4th gen fighters got to sell their hardware. After that, it would be foolish not to get something like the f-35, kfx or the j-31. If I want to buy a new fighter now, I would go for a tried and tested airplane with mature upgrades like.the f-16v. If I want a lightweight fighter for basic air policing task, a cheap fa-50/jf-17 is more than enough, basically could do 80% of what a Gripen e/f could do at less than half of the price.
                            Yeah its better to go with the Barn f16 with lousy rcs since it gets shot down faster ? Get real.

                            Comment

                            • Spitfire9
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jul 2008
                              • 2846

                              Originally posted by alexz View Post
                              I would definitely choose a f-16v over all the gripen e/f hype.

                              The main issue here is, the next 4-5 years is the only time those 4th gen fighters got to sell their hardware.
                              May turn out to be the case for F-16, F-18, Typhoon. Certainly will not be the case for Gripen, Rafale.
                              Sum ergo cogito

                              Comment

                              • garryA
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Dec 2015
                                • 1120

                                Originally posted by Urban View Post
                                Yeah its better to go with the Barn f16 with lousy rcs since it gets shot down faster ? Get real.
                                Realistically, how much smaller the RCS of Gripen vs F-16?

                                Comment

                                • garryA
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Dec 2015
                                  • 1120

                                  Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                                  @Garry: ahaa! THAT is what "balanced" refer to !
                                  which is why i dont think it a reasonable objective compariy
                                  How can the gripen be stealthy from UHF to MMW bands?
                                  Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                                  that CAP image is from the norwegian campaign IIRC
                                  Can you post the source for the documents? i cant locate original pdf file

                                  Comment

                                  • FBW
                                    FBW
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Dec 2011
                                    • 3294

                                    Reality check time again..... The Gripen was INFERIOR to the F-16 block 50/52 when evaluated in Poland.

                                    As part of the technical analysis for each competing aircraft, Colonel Jan Błaszczyk of the Polish Air Force compared and evaluated the capabilities of the fighter aircraft according to various criteria. He used a relative scale to collate his results.
                                    1. Technical/tactical parameters (air-air, air-ground)
                                    2. Ability to maneuver (air-air, air-ground)
                                    3. Armament (air-air, air-ground)
                                    4. Avionics (air-air, air-ground)
                                    5. Dynamical properties (overall)
                                    6. Battlefield survivability
                                    7. Electronic warfare/self-defense characteristics
                                    8. Operational cost (labor hours, maintenance requirement)
                                    9. Composite factor of all of the above
                                    The F-16 ranked first in the air-to-air and air-to-ground mission areas of the avionics and armament categories, as well as the overall evaluation.
                                    http://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpubl...aper_11-en.pdf

                                    Now there have been two evaluations: The Gripen was rated inferior to the F-16 50/52 in the first, and inferior/comparable with the F-18C in the other.

                                    The Gripen E/F should be a different beast, and a superbly capable aircraft. In no way do I mean to point out the above as a flag waving exercise, nor is it a knock on the Gripen. It is, because it was designed to be, an aircraft roughly comparable to the F-16 while offering cheaper operational costs. That is was it is, that is a favorable assessment. What it is not: a comparable aircraft to the Rafale, Typhoon at bargain basement costs. Deal with it, some posters need to get a GRIP(en)- see what I did there?

                                    Comment

                                    • Halo
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Apr 2009
                                      • 212

                                      Originally posted by alexz View Post
                                      The problem with all the plus points of the gripen e/f is that it could not be attained in the same time.

                                      If it carries max fuel for max range it could not carry the max weapon load.

                                      If it carried max weapon load it cannot be filled with max fuel load.

                                      If it is forced to dogfight with heavy weapons load, it won't be as maneuverable as say a typhoon.


                                      All the advanced EW/avionics on the gripen e/f is not exclusive to the Gripen. Something similar could also be fitted to other fighter aircraft.

                                      In the end, it is still a light fighter with a small engine. I see the gripen as a "gucci" light fighter that should be realistically compared to the tejas/jf-17/fa-50, not with typhoons/rafales.
                                      Yes well admitted, No dogfighting or long hauls with heavy loads, remaining 99% of all missions this is not a problem.

                                      GaN based EW-only future Rafale no others, fixed IR MAWS-only F35, wide angle AESA-only future Eurofighter, long/dual wave IRST-only Eurofighter, directional data links-only F35, off board jamming-?, the combo of all these only Gripen.

                                      In a lot of important quality issues Gripen is actually superior to most or all others, yes it does come with many limitations but its in quite a different league compared to FA-50 / JF 17. I know that this is disturbing to some members here....

                                      Comment

                                      • Loke
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2008
                                        • 3302

                                        Meanwhile, the Saab chief executive also declines to reveal when the company expects to conduct the first flight with its lead prototype of the new-generation Gripen E. Final assembly work on aircraft 39-8 is, however, “going tremendously well”, he comments.

                                        https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...b-boss-421777/

                                        Comment

                                        • alexz
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Nov 2010
                                          • 325

                                          Originally posted by Halo View Post
                                          Yes well admitted, No dogfighting or long hauls with heavy loads, remaining 99% of all missions this is not a problem.

                                          GaN based EW-only future Rafale no others, fixed IR MAWS-only F35, wide angle AESA-only future Eurofighter, long/dual wave IRST-only Eurofighter, directional data links-only F35, off board jamming-?, the combo of all these only Gripen.

                                          In a lot of important quality issues Gripen is actually superior to most or all others, yes it does come with many limitations but its in quite a different league compared to FA-50 / JF 17. I know that this is disturbing to some members here....
                                          The problem is when you put so much stuff on an airframe with half the power of an f-16, it becomes practically a flying truck, not a flying sportscar like the f-16 or typhoon. Only saab creative marketing that has hidden so much of the planes performance deficiencies, the comparative evaluations by various airforces has shown that at best it would perform no better than old f-16 or FA-18.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X