While reading on this forum I’ve have wondered about this supposed leaked report that had emerged here and there. Since I haven’t read about it elsewhere in this thread, I want to share what I found on another forum. I stumbled across this little piece by a certain gf0012-aust, an moderator of this forum: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/. I don’t know what kind of person he is but he seems to be knowledgeable and have, according to him self, been in such an evaluation/procurement teams more than one. A professional if you like.

You can read his own words here, reply nr 6 and 11: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/switzerland-chooses-saab-gripen-11597/

In short (by my reading skill that is…) he dismiss this “report” point blank as a planted story. IMHO this is probably done by forum-fighters close to the first two losers and their agents in the Swiss Air force.

Have fun all! 😀

Superjoser

Thanks for the link! Interesting read! 🙂

I have real difficulty believing the data within that link.

Energy maneuverability is the cornerstone of modern ACM doctrine. It is well accepted that the YF-17, F/A-18 A-C and F/A-18 E/F are not good at maintaining energy levels (which they somewhat compensate for with excellent point-ability at high AoA). However, pointability is no substitute for maneuverability, if you’ve no KE (and cannot quickly generate it), then you will have real issues trying to out maneuvre any incoming missiles.

The Gripen has a helmet mounted sight, as does the Eurofighter (here). So both can aim off-bore weapons just as well as any F/A-18 and both have better kinematic performance to evade any counter shots.

It is hard to see the reasoning for the Gripen being behind the F/A-18 and it is even harder to see the reasoning for the Eurofighter only being marginally ahead.

AFAIK, the 6 in the graph is not the Hornet. The Rafale News page just assume it to be so. The chart represents the demands of the Swiss evaluators. It’s more a comparison between the eurocanards. Gripens main strengths is its networkk fighting ability using its world leading TIDLS 39. Operating at low altitudes and in mountainous terrain might have a negative impact on this ability. This can explain to some extent the low(?) score for the Gripen in the chart.

Gripen NG is the concept. The Gripen DEMO is a Gripen C/D modified to test the feasibility of the concept. Gripen E/F is the end result, the one that is going to be commercialize.

Here’s what Wikipedia says.

The new Gripen NG (Next Generation) is also referred to as the “Gripen Demo”,the “Gripen E/F”, or MS 21.

Gripen Demo. A two-seat technology demonstrator for improvements slated for the Gripen NG.

Gripen NG. (Next Generation) Proposed version with new engine (F414G), increased fuel capacity, higher payload, upgraded avionics and other improvements.

Gripen NG is a demonstrator, that doesn’t mean the Gripen E/F will be anything like it…

The Gripen DEMO is the demonstrator. The Gripen NG, or the E/F version or whatever it’s called is the end result,, AFAIK.

Whats the deal with the larger wing? AFAIK, wing area remains unchanged.

The Gripen NG will have a 10 cm longer fuselage, and a 20 cm wider wingspan. I’m guessing the inner chord has been increased by 10 cm thanks to the elongated fuselage.

Id agree with Hotdog, the M2K has very large wing area for a very light wing loading. At high altitude Im sure the M2K would have better turn radius. That large wing area also influences turning response, were talking one large turning surface that is balanced exactly over its CoL thanks to FBW control. Compare that to an all moving canard that is bearing lift on its own and which is in opposition to the minimal turning moment of the wing because the CoG is centered between the CoL of the carnard and wing. The canard also has to make severe pitch changes to create lift in sharp turns which causes drag. The only FBW canard jet that was done right was HIMAT. All-moving canards at first may seem like a good idea, but its really not and almost no new fighters are pursuing the concept.

When the Mirage initiates a pitching moment it uses its elevons to force the tail downwards by killing lift, something most modern fighters, including the Rafale, F-22 etc does as well. The Gripen(and Eurofighter) on the other hand uses its canards for pitch wich adds lift, the elevons are used as trimming devices, adding lift, stabilizing the turn rate. The Gripen therefore more effectively uses its wings lifiting capacity in comparison to the Mirage 2000, and most other fighters as well for that matter.

Also, the canards on the Gripen only needs to make very small(not severe) pitch changes during maneuvers, creating minimal drag.

Gripen pilots commented that the Mirage 2000 was a tougher opponent to beat in a turning fight than an F-16 or an F-18. At least during the first turn. Mostly thanks to the high ITR capability of the Mirage 2000. The Gripen is still superior in this regard, however.

Wonderful action packed photos! 🙂