I love the Gripen and it has several real world advantages (purchase costs, operating costs, maintenance requirements, serviceability and STOL to name but five)
The Swedes seem to have been sensor-fusing before anybody thought of a buzz word for it
I’m even convinced that in a clean or minimum load configuration it will have some kinematic advantages
But in terms or load, range and persistence the E is still a light (or light-medium) fighter. So doesn’t address the same market or role as the big boys. It does do what it’s intended to do very well.
Radar set will be praised comparing to the Rafale in its present configuration.
Also a Gripen A or C can outmaneuver many aircraft.
For the E, I would like to remind the reader that it STILL doesn’t exist, hasn’t fly and wasn’t combat tested. It a long shot to before we will be able to have a rational comparison.
And by the way, personally I would drop it. Too long, too few or too far from core customer needs. Plenty of new things to build for the Swedish industry to settle on such residually imaginative design (airframe).
Sign In
