Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • MSphere
    Senior Member
    • Feb 2010
    • 8983

    Originally posted by FBW View Post
    Reality check time again..... The Gripen was INFERIOR to the F-16 block 50/52 when evaluated in Poland.
    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 deal with Polish Block 52 was a political order.. US-Polish relations, control zone in Iraq, etc. etc.. Not that the Block 52 was a bad aircraft, but an US design had to "win".. I would take those results with a grain of salt.
    Last edited by MSphere; 12th February 2016, 10:01.

    Comment

    • obligatory
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2008
      • 7043

      f-16 should certainly carry more ordnance than C, so if that is priority, f-16 can win in a fair play.
      it really comes down to priorities in any evaluation.

      Comment

      • Loke
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jun 2008
        • 3302

        Contact AERO Magazine story, the Air Force Command reaffirms that the whole process was conducted by COPAC (Committee Program Coordinator Combat Aircraft) independently and completely technically. The report with more than 37,000 pages produced by COPAC points Gripen NG as preferred by the military. According to the document, the Swedish fighter is the best option operating, logistics, industrial and technological.

        In other words, what the military is saying is that the choice of the Gripen NG by COPAC fighters did not influence the activities of lobbyists in the government in favor of Saab, nor the alleged irregularities that may have committed. That is, if there was some kind of tort, it was irrelevant to the definition of Swedish fighters by the military.
        Google translated from: http://aeromagazine.uol.com.br/artig...ce=twitterfeed

        Comment

        • swerve
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jun 2005
          • 13610

          Originally posted by alexz View Post
          The engine power/ engine thrust I mean
          There's never been an F-16 variant with twice the power of any Gripen model.
          Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
          Justinian

          Comment

          • Nicolas10
            Senior Member
            • May 2005
            • 4523

            oops wrong thread

            Comment

            • swerve
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2005
              • 13610

              Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
              Its interesting, the F-16C has an empty weight that's just 7% more than the Gripen E, but packs roughly 30% greater thrust. On the face of it, Saab's intentions vis a vis supercruise seem.. optimistic.
              What figures are you using, from what source? Which model of F-16C? Which model of Gripen?
              Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
              Justinian

              Comment

              • FBW
                FBW
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Dec 2011
                • 3295

                Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                The deal with Polish Block 52 was a political order.. US-Polish relations, control zone in Iraq, etc. etc.. Not that the Block 52 was a bad aircraft, but an US design had to "win".. I would take those results with a grain of salt.
                The technical evaluation and the selection were two different things. The F-16 was selected for all the reasons u stated, and the promise of larger "offsets" than competitors (which I alluded to in former posts, was questionable). The block 50/52 scored the highest in evaluation, but selection may have been a bit tainted.

                Comment

                • Loke
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jun 2008
                  • 3302

                  Originally posted by FBW View Post

                  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?
                  As others have mentioned, in the Swiss eval they used "credibility factor" to adjust the parameters for assessment of the 2015 version. In a way this makes sense since there will be uncertainties around capabilities until they are fully complete. However this may have "hurt" Gripen more than the others since Gripen E at that time was not very well advanced.

                  No doubt Gripen is still in a different category than the Rafale and Typhoon, being small and light-weight. However in some aspects it may not be far behind. Even with the "credibility factor" it scored highly in EW, which seems a critical component for a 4.5 gen fighter that cannot rely on stealth to survive. The sensors will all be new, and therefore had low "credibility factor" when assessed.

                  Consider the Raven AESA; are there any reasons to believe it will be much inferior to the Rafale AESA? I do not know, however I observe both have roughly the same size and same number of TR elements; and both have been developed by European companies. The Raven will be slightly "newer", OTOH Thales no doubt is a world-class radar developer. My guess is they would be roughly comparable. Consider the IRST; this is basically an iteration of the one found in Typhoon; improved algorithms and slightly more modern HW; should be quite decent. IR warning system: Paw-2 from Elbit; looks pretty advanced. Gripen E will have new EW antennas based on GaN. Sensor fusion was highlighted as a weakness for both Gripen and Typhoon. Saab has indicated there will be huge improvements in this field; nobody (but Saab) knows the details.

                  Some weak points will not change; it will remain a small, light-weight fighter, and compared to larger fighters it will of course have less endurance, and if load-out is heavy, range will drop much faster than for a larger fighter. However in some scenarios (e.g., a2a missions) it may not be far behind the Rafale and Typhoon in capabilities, since sensors, sensor fusion, EW performance, and missile performance seems to be the most important parameters for 4.5 gen fighters these days.

                  Comment

                  • MSphere
                    Senior Member
                    • Feb 2010
                    • 8983

                    Originally posted by FBW View Post
                    The technical evaluation and the selection were two different things. The F-16 was selected for all the reasons u stated, and the promise of larger "offsets" than competitors (which I alluded to in former posts, was questionable). The block 50/52 scored the highest in evaluation, but selection may have been a bit tainted.
                    It all comes down to the set of requirements you define and the weighing of the individual points. You cannot cheat by declaring F-16's fuel consumption be lower than that of a Gripen, that can be easily debunked... but you can simply assign a low priority to that parameter and higher priority for the point where the F-16 excels in and that's it.

                    It's a good practice in all companies I have worked in that you first make a decision and only then create a decision matrix with basically supports your choice ..

                    Comment

                    • Loke
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jun 2008
                      • 3302

                      A request for proposals (RFP) to launch off Belgium’s search to replace its 59-strong Lockheed Martin F-16A/B fleet is expected “this summer”, with the schedule to allow for a new fighter to be in service by 2025, a source close to the programme has revealed.
                      It is expected to be a five-aircraft competition, with the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed F-35 and Saab Gripen bidding.
                      Full story: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...421877/boeing/

                      4 billlion USD -- it 's not clear what that includes; in any case it looks like a tiny budget and therefore I think this will be between the F-35 (preferred by the Air Force) and Gripen (preferred by the Finance Department?). I struggle to see how any of the others can fit in there; but who knows?

                      Edit: Again we see a competition that includes Gripen but not the F-16...

                      Comment

                      • Nicolas10
                        Senior Member
                        • May 2005
                        • 4523

                        Originally posted by Loke View Post
                        4 billlion USD -- it 's not clear what that includes; in any case it looks like a tiny budget and therefore I think this will be between the F-35 (preferred by the Air Force) and Gripen (preferred by the Finance Department?). I struggle to see how any of the others can fit in there; but who knows?
                        Yeah I wonder why Dassault, Boeing or Eurofighter would even bid.

                        Comment

                        • obligatory
                          Senior Member
                          • Oct 2008
                          • 7043

                          "Edit: Again we see a competition that includes Gripen but not the F-16... "

                          "cause of reality" F-16 is too superior to contend,
                          but on a serious note, i do wonder why this is, that in a competition where F-18 & gripen think they got a shot,
                          F-16 do not

                          Comment

                          • Sintra
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Aug 2007
                            • 3849

                            Originally posted by Loke View Post
                            Full story: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...421877/boeing/

                            4 billlion USD -- it 's not clear what that includes; in any case it looks like a tiny budget and therefore I think this will be between the F-35 (preferred by the Air Force) and Gripen (preferred by the Finance Department?). I struggle to see how any of the others can fit in there; but who knows?

                            Edit: Again we see a competition that includes Gripen but not the F-16...
                            With a budget screaming "KAI FA-50"... That or a handful of F-35s or a handful and a half of Gripens...
                            sigpic

                            Comment

                            • MSphere
                              Senior Member
                              • Feb 2010
                              • 8983

                              Originally posted by Loke View Post
                              Full story: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...421877/boeing/

                              4 billlion USD -- it 's not clear what that includes; in any case it looks like a tiny budget and therefore I think this will be between the F-35 (preferred by the Air Force) and Gripen (preferred by the Finance Department?). I struggle to see how any of the others can fit in there; but who knows?

                              Edit: Again we see a competition that includes Gripen but not the F-16...
                              4 bil could get you 17-20 F-35s with equipment.. Or 30-32 Gripen Es.

                              Comment

                              • Sintra
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Aug 2007
                                • 3849

                                Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                                "Edit: Again we see a competition that includes Gripen but not the F-16... "

                                "cause of reality" F-16 is too superior to contend,
                                but on a serious note, i do wonder why this is, that in a competition where F-18 & gripen think they got a shot,
                                F-16 do not
                                By then the F-16 line will be closed?
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                • Vnomad
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • May 2011
                                  • 2859

                                  Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                  What figures are you using, from what source? Which model of F-16C? Which model of Gripen?
                                  F-16C Blk 50 (-GE 129). Gripen E (as per Saab brochure).

                                  Comment

                                  • FBW
                                    FBW
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Dec 2011
                                    • 3295

                                    Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                    4 bil could get you 17-20 F-35s with equipment.. Or 30-32 Gripen Es.
                                    Considering the needs/requirements of Belgium, they are not going to ask for local production, ToT, like the Brazilian contract, so 30-32 may be low for the Gripen E/F

                                    Considering the F-35 deals to date (S. Korea: 7.1 Billion for 40 F-35),that also requires ToT, and offsets....Japan 42 aircraft for 10 billion(est.) with lifetime O&S with all of the usual FMS goodies and local production of some components (possibly up to 40% local content). 20 may be low for the number of F-35 that could be procured.

                                    It would be difficult to put a number on how many of either type could be purchased until details of the contract are released. If, for example, the tender calls for lifetime O&S costs, that is not going to buy enough of ANY fighter.

                                    IF Belgium is basically buying off the shelf, and perhaps pool resources (buy time on Netherlands, Norway F-35 simulators, Swedish AF sims and training support) with neighbors, they could get a credible number of either. Especially if the contract does not include O&S costs (which article mentions is unclear) or weapons.

                                    By then the F-16 line will be closed?
                                    - I very much doubt that L-M would want to compete against it's own product.

                                    Edit- wrote Denmark instead of Belgium (note to self- no more celebrating the weekend a day early)
                                    Last edited by FBW; 12th February 2016, 18:41.

                                    Comment

                                    • Vnomad
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • May 2011
                                      • 2859

                                      Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                      4 bil could get you 17-20 F-35s with equipment.. Or 30-32 Gripen Es.
                                      More like 27-30 Gripen Es (see: Switzerland).

                                      Comment

                                      • Spitfire9
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jul 2008
                                        • 2832

                                        Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                        Full story: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...421877/boeing/

                                        4 billlion USD -- it 's not clear what that includes; in any case it looks like a tiny budget and therefore I think this will be between the F-35 (preferred by the Air Force) and Gripen (preferred by the Finance Department?). I struggle to see how any of the others can fit in there; but who knows?

                                        Edit: Again we see a competition that includes Gripen but not the F-16...
                                        Given that The Netherlands has selected F-35A but will struggle with the cost and Belgium also has a limited budget. why don't Belgium and The Netherlands arrange to share F-35 support equipment and services to make the thing less expensive to operate? Belgium is very, very small. Both countries have good road infrastructure making travelling overland between bases in different countries quick. IIRC the two countries are increasing military co-operation or plan to do so regardless of what fighter they both select. It's not too clever for 2 countries that are next to each other to duplicate large costs that could be avoided. Could be that a similar arrangement could be made with France so that Rafale cost could be reduced to an affordable level. I don't otherwise see how Belgium could afford enough fighters for a tier 1 fighter such as F-35 or Rafale to be viable. Typhoon: definitely too costly IMO. F/A-18: probably too costly IMO. Which leaves Gripen as possibly the only fighter Belgium could afford.
                                        Sum ergo cogito

                                        Comment

                                        • Vnomad
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • May 2011
                                          • 2859

                                          Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                          Consider the Raven AESA; are there any reasons to believe it will be much inferior to the Rafale AESA? I do not know, however I observe both have roughly the same size and same number of TR elements; and both have been developed by European companies. The Raven will be slightly "newer", OTOH Thales no doubt is a world-class radar developer. My guess is they would be roughly comparable.
                                          Are they though? The Raven ought to be more capable. I'm pretty sure its larger (dia. 60 cm vs 55 cm). T/R modules come from the same tech base. And Selex is also a world-class radar developer.

                                          Consider the IRST; this is basically an iteration of the one found in Typhoon; improved algorithms and slightly more modern HW; should be quite decent. IR warning system: Paw-2 from Elbit; looks pretty advanced. Gripen E will have new EW antennas based on GaN. Sensor fusion was highlighted as a weakness for both Gripen and Typhoon. Saab has indicated there will be huge improvements in this field; nobody (but Saab) knows the details.
                                          Indeed. The trouble is that as the capability differential with it larger cousins shrinks, so does the difference in cost. Personally, I'd expect the larger Eurocanards to cost about 33% more (maybe.. as much as 40%). The smaller operators may be willing to make that trade in the Gripen E's favour, but it'll have a much harder going against the F-35A.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X