wellerocksIn case you didn’t notice, I didn’t compare the “Gripen/Polo” to a “This or that/Ferrari” ;), but rather to an old but perfectly good Mercedes (190E) which is (was, in fact) somewhat costlier to buy new and overall offers more while remaining in the category “everybody’s people car”. Basically a car comparison where most people may have an idea of relative good and less god points of the things compared. GTR vs Ferrari, I wonder how many people around here have ever sit in one of these two (or comparable models), never mind pushed them to a limit to see what they are really capable of…
Again, not about chest bumping or denigrating anyone, just trying to give some perspective with comparisons that may be easier to visualize for those reading them
Well, true. I’m just speculating based on my own personal experience from the deeply missed Top Gear 🙁 I get your point and I think we’re both somewhat in the same line of reasoning, there’s just too many people underestimating the Gripen for being small or for being from Sweden. Just like with the cars, there’s probably not many on here with actual flight time in neither of the mentioned A/C or have any actual data on their performances. My humble guess is that they all have their strong-point in one or more categories. The Gripen pilots have repeatedly expressed in various statements that the Gripen is a very nimble and agile fighter that keeps a lot of momentum and bleeds very little energy in curve battles. On twitter there’s a Gripen pilot who is one of the most well known defense bloggers in Sweden. He’s known for laying down the truth, however hard it might be. He claims that he has yet to loose a curve battle against the F-16, the F/A-18 and the F-15 in the Gripen. But hey, who knows? There’s so many factors, and most are based on what kind of support elements and the battle situation anyways. I know there’s a photo from the HUD of a Gripen who scores a kill on the EF, but those prove little if nothing, as there’s no way to know about the situation, same goes with all the Rafale cockpit kills showing e.g. the EF or even the F-22.
wellerocksWell, basically, the Gripen NG is rhe new Polo I’m speaking about
it drives nicely, has plenty of gadgets and can carry quite nicely 4 people and some luggage, and quite economically.
I gives a good “bang for the buck” as you say… but as the expression says it: “for the buck” – which I translate by “you get what you pay for”
It is not a bad aircraft, quite the opposite, a nice well performing light fighter, not unlike the F-5 was in its time… simply, one can hardly say “it is da best out there, bar none!”
I hardly think it’s fair to compare the Gripen to a Polo. In car terms, I’d say it’s the equivalent of the Nissan GTR. It’s basically a super sportscar, being cheaper and more humble than, e.g. a ferrari or a Lamborghini even whilst being mostly equal to, and in some cases even outperforming them in some categories.
I really don’t want to make this into some chest beating competition, because we all know how useful that really is. But compared to the three most similar type of A/C, the other two eurocanards and the Viper, it’s important to realize that there’s not one A/C for all needs. There’s several factors. Sweden built the Gripen with “Total war with Russia” in mind, thus, range and payload was not of great importance. The Gripen had to be able to keep a high survivability facing Soviet threats, high operational status, cheap to operate to keep high number of A/C in the SwAF, have an easy structure to let conscripts/reservists handle them at simple roadbases and to be able to defend Sweden from Swedish territory. If you take e.g. the Rafale, its design criterias was set at a much wider spectrum. France is rarely stationary in France, but often do missions far abroad. Distant bombing missions, the ability to carry nuclear tipped missiles, carrier operations etc. gave the demands for a dual engine fighter jet with high export potential relying mostly if not solely on french systems/parts.
They all have their own advantages and methods for carrying out missions. Compared to the A/B + C/D Gripens, the Rafale targeted larger export costumers that required long range fighters carrying large payloads whilst the Gripens targeted nations requiring fighters with focus on national defense, QRAs and a cheap modern western fighter. The Gripen NG however is Saabs step towards challenging the long range, dual engine fighters with a new modernized Gripen with similar performance at a cheaper price. In Saabs case, it’s not really about “you get what you pay for”. It’s about using every means to aquire similar/equal/better performance at a cheaper cost. For the Gripen NG/E/F they’ve used a lot of COTS products in order to drive development costs down. With the Selex Raven AESA, they’ve managed to introduce a radar with performance atleast equal to that of the EF/Rafale but at a lower cost for implementation. Something France won’t do for many reasons e.g. due to the reliance on approval from other states. The Gripen NG truly showed that it has what it takes to be a success in international competitions with similar performance to the larger more expensive fighter jets by winning the competitions in both Switzerland and Brazil, of course not merely because of its performance, but that it met the necessary standards and was the cheapest.
Don’t think you would find much disagreement in that, and the Gripen E/F should correct many of the deficiencies of the “C” listed in the Swiss eval. The one cause for concern is the rise in weight, hopefully the weight growth is in check, otherwise climb performance and acceleration will differ little from the Gripen C.
Well from the information let out by Saab it’s pretty evident that the rise in weight on the airframe itself wont be a problem, and the NG has even supercruised at Mach 1.2 for 25 minutes with 2 IRIS-T and 2 Meteors. The T/W ratio will be somewhere around 1.05-1.15 depending on the final layout and which engine they finally decide on. It’s definitely not going to be like the evolution from the Hornet C/D to Hornet E/F. The basic structure is similar whilst there will be a smaller increase in the profile of the plane and with some new D0-objects [but will likely be cancelled out by the removal of some external parts aswell].
wellerocksClose coupled canard delta isn’t specific to saab, neither is sensor fusion, data sharing and so on. Every vendor says his product is the best.. Fact is, it is the third eurocanard in time and in capabilities, somewhat cheaper, but as with everything, you get what you pay for.
There’s a buddy of mine who came a couple of months back, all happy for his new car: a Volkswagen Polo. Nice little car, fun to drive, cheap… Well, yeah, I’ll still keep my old Mercedes. It’s not some big luxury model, far from that, but still better comfort, space inside and overall certainly more durable (it’s already 26 years old and runs like a charm)
Well, let’s break your comment down a little bit and see if I interpret your comment about cars into the relevant topic here without the typical chest beating.
“It’s not some big luxury model, far from that” – The Gripen is basically exactly that. A high performance fighter jet with a relatively small price tag and was designed with one thing in mind, most “bang for the buck”.
“but still better comfort” – It has a reputation for being easy to operate and easy to learn to fly, not only that but it emphasizes on being easy to maintain and get up in the air after a quick roadbase landing to refuel, rearm and if necessary, perform engine change.
“space inside” – If translated into the weapons load, the C has a bit of a problem due to relatively few hardpoints compared to e.g. Rafale or EF. That basically comes from the national Swedish Defense strategy, where it was less important due to the closeness to roadbases and the possibility to quickly refuel and rearm. The NG/39E has taken a big leap from the 39C with more pylons and smarter solutions in order to get quite a huge weapons load for a small single engine fighter. If translated into possibility to upgrade it, the Gripen has always been designed with that in mind. Upgrades are usually made relatively with ease to incorporate new weapons or systems. Something certain other fighter jets have a problem with.
“and overall certainly more durable (it’s already 26 years old and runs like a charm)” – Well, the Gripen has an excellent track-record when it comes to reliability and MTBF. In that regard, the Gripen truly shines.
The way I see it, the Gripen is a trend breaker. It might not be the best A/C for all missions and might not be the best in all aspects, but the way I see it, it has broken the trend where fighters get more and more expensive, not just in theory, like the F-35, but in reality, unlike the F-35. For its size, its price tag and its country of origin, it’s truly an amazing machine which offers a whole lot of bang for the buck while maintaining most of the qualities of other fighters.
wellerocksConcur. Despite Loke’s Gripen NG luvv posts here about how the Gripen NG was perfect for India & its MMRCA (which to a large degree has the objective of choosing a platform that would face off against larger number of heavy Flanker class fighters – PLAAF), Indian AF ditched the Gripen NG, and chose the Rafale/EF as its choices. Says it all, really, despite the SAAB PR
Let’s go through this. There hasn’t been any official explanation as to why the Gripen failed to meet the shortlist. The most likely cause detailed by many indian defense bloggers was that Saab was unable to provide enough evidence that their AESA was mature, would be delivered on time and with the intended qualities. I don’t find that too unrealistic. Apparently, both Eurofighter and Rafale had similar problems but managed to find temporary satisfactory solutions.
wellerocksMy two cents:
[ATTACH]211109[/ATTACH]
F-14D Super Tomcat kinda prefer VF-111 sundowners motives thogh
[ATTACH]211110[/ATTACH]
F-15J “Sakura”
[ATTACH]211111[/ATTACH]
P-51D Mustang “Cripes ‘a’ mighty 3rd”
[ATTACH]211112[/ATTACH]
J-35 Draken
[ATTACH]211113[/ATTACH]
Spitfire
[ATTACH]211114[/ATTACH]
Su-27
[ATTACH]211115[/ATTACH]
B-1B
Honorable mentions: JAS 39 Gripen, Mirage 2000, F-106 Delta Dart, Rafale and Concorde.
wellerocksit is no problem because j20 will do all, fight ground and air targets. stop arguing.
Does the J-20 come with a built in flamethrower aswell? Or is that only available through the use of a pod?
I doubt the J-20 would be able to carry ASMs, at least not internally. The weapons bay seems a bit too small for that.
The main weapon bay seems quite short but really wide. Illustrations have shown the use of 6(?) AAMs in that. Maybe it’s intended for for the Chinese version of the SDB?
wellerocksAren’t the Eurofighter and Gripen considered to be multi-role…?
Well, very few modern military jets are not designed to be multi-roll. Both the Eurofighter and the Gripen E could be regarded as good interceptors seeing as they’re both capable of going Mach 2+ and supercruise with a relatively large payload of long range BVR missiles and utilizing advanced sensors.
I’m guessing the J-20 would be aerodynamically optimized for the transonic and supersonic envelopes. Seeing as the intent of the airframe seems to be of a dual engined VLO-design with internal weapon bays, I’m seeing a lot of interceptor-features, and if it has the ability to carry any of the newly developed chinese anti-ship missiles or cruise missiles, it could make a capable strike aircraft.
The biggest doubts I have in the J-20 is performance-wise regarding its engines, its radar and the extent of its low observability.
wellerocksMy humble and most unprofessional guess is that it’s a strike/interceptor aircraft with a secondary air to air role to be able to deliver its payload and if necessary, be able to fight its way out of there. Makes me think of a Su-34 or F-111.
wellerockschina does not need tu22. supersonic bombers is a thing of the past and obsolete. china also can make its own bombers. china do not need su35 either, they can make fighters one generation ahead now and its own j11 is better. china do not need anything from russia except engine but that will change in 3 years
Ah yes, you should write a letter and explain that to the Russian and American decision makers and save them many billions of dollars for scrapping the PAK-DA, Next generation bomber and to retire all current supersonic bombers and scrap all planned updates and modernization programs on them.
So far there isn’t anything that says the J-20 nor J-31 would be that much more stealthy, other than the fact that they have internal weapon bays, nor that they would be superior, or even equal for that matter, to the Su-35 in terms of avionics or radars. What we’ve seen otherwise are projects (J-10A, J-10B, J-11 & J-15) that would be equal to the 4th generation.
wellerocksSo the Gripen is really just a Swedish reverse-engineered F-35 with cooler paint? That would explain why Norway assumed it would be more costly!
wellerocksFlown off Foch light, & with a small temporary extension to the flight deck. Not a realistic option for anything other than test flights under restricted conditions.
Rafale & Super Hornet are only options for the Brazilian navy for operating off a larger carrier, if one is built in the future.
Well, to my extent of knowledge, the test flights committed with the Rafale onboard the Foch was in preparations for being converted into a Rafale-carrier, but primarily due to financial reasons, the Foch was instead sold and the de Gaulle replaced it.
So I’d still reckon that the São Paulo could operate Rafale-M or F/A-18C/D Hornet with some not too costly modifications. I still believe a sea Gripen would require some modifications on the São Paulo aswell. Haven’t read any detailed presentation for any Sea Gripen pitch to Brazil.
wellerocksCan the Brazilian carrier operate SH? I was under the impression that the Sea Gripen proposal was aimed at Brazil’s CV.
The way I see it, Brazil is open for suggestions. The Sea Gripen has been launched primarily to go after the needs of India, Thailand and Brazil. Due to its STOL-capabilites and being of a single-engine design, it could be very interesting for India if they were to cancel the naval LCA (which at the moment seems highly unlikely). France seems to have pitched two types of ideas. The Dassault Rafale has already been test-flown off the São Paulo back when it was in French service (Foch R99), so technically it should be able to operate onboard the São Paulo without any major modifications. France has also proposed a joint venture to aquire the ‘Future French aircraft carrier’ intended to replace the Charles de Gaulle. I don’t know anything about Boeings naval proposals to Brazil, but I can only imagine they’re trying to pitch both existing surplus Hornets and future Super Hornets as both an interim and future solution with the possibility to get training in the United States.
Brazil has bought into South Africa’s A-Darter AAM.
I wonder if this is a pointer toward the selection of the Gripen, also operated by South Africa, or whether it will simply be integrated onto whatever platform they choose?
The FAB has expressed that the F-X2 choice will get the A-Darter integrated, to some extent, the South African military ties and the fact that the A-Darter already is integrated is a plus for the Gripen. Brazil has also discussed further military cooperation with Air-Air missiles between the two nations. But it seems that whatever the choice might be, the A-Darter will get implemented.
wellerocksit is true, typhoon has slight advantage over jf17 because jf17 is a smaller fighter that needs some upgrades but very good for most south american air forces. j10b and j31 is obviously what you need if the country needs typhoon killers. typhoon doesnt even have aesa.
I’d bet my money on a Eurofighter Typhoon FGR4 equipped with the CAPTOR-radar, PIRATE and DASS (with the CAPTOR-E AESA & Meteor well on their way) over any JF-17 or J-10.
What do you mean with “Typhoon doesn’t even have AESA”? Neither does the J-10 nor the JF-17. Seeing as the RAF has already eyed the option of implementing the CAPTOR-E before the implementation of the Meteor, the Typhoon would have its very capable AESA long before any reverse-engineered AESA radars on any JF-17 Block II or J-10B.
Second hand Mirage 2000 and F-16 are well proven platforms and highly capable but I only see them as stop gaps some counties like Argentina may go for Mirage 2000 if its cheap and the terms are right and Brazil may also get more Mirage 2000 as they already operate the type and it could be away of pushing back any decision on F-X2 until 2020 allowing time to see how Russian and Chinese 5th gen types come on and putting pressure on the US over F-35
This said SAAB could offer to lease 20-30 old Gripen C/D to Brazil as a stop gap and away of future sales of Gripen E/F and the same could be said of Boeing with F-18C/D and E/F of course if they went F-18 they could ditch the A4 upgrade and operate F-18 from there carrier
As for the Chinese pushing J10 in this region they need to sort out the engine issues before they can export to anyone other an Pakistan. JF-17 is a safer bet as it is designed to incorporate western weapons for PAF
I have a feeling that the Gripen will be eliminated. It’s a great choice, but even though being the cheapest of the three and providing the best industrial off-set (or atleast on par with Boeings offers) it should have been the most reasonable choice if Brazil is on a strained economy, which is why they’ve post-poned the decision oh so many times. But because they’ve postponed it due to financial reasons, I have a feeling they want something more expensive, i.e. Boeing or Dassault.
I don’t see why they can’t choose two types though. The Super Gripen for the FAB and the Super Hornet for the Navy. They use the same sort of engine aswell as weapons and you can’t have a common training either way due to the large differences in the way they’re operated. Since the FAB has in mind a larger number of fighters (36), a cheaper alternative might be preferred, whilst the Navy, that eyes a smaller number (10-16 fighters), a heavier and more expensive option might be justified.
wellerocksi can agree typhoon may have slight advantage against jf17 but against j10b or j31, not so sure. maybe not.
Excuse me?
wellerocksJust spitballing here, but wouldn’t there be any chance that a norwegian or danish pilot could have tried both?
Sign In
