Saab Gripen, how does it rate?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Thomas RE:Saab Gripen, how does it rate? 9/19/2003 7:36:36 AM

Jaques: All the pionts mentioned, you can get with a F-16A second hand with update. 10 mio. $ Why do you think the Danish Airforce don't bother looking at the thing???

Quote Reply

northenguy RE:Saab Gripen, how does it rate? 9/19/2003 10:25:51 PM

Jacques mentions in his post that the Gripen can be serviced by one nco and 9 recruits at a remote site. The Swedes claim that not only can it be serviced under such circumstances but that an engine can be hot swapped in 20 minutes. This seems just a little too impressive. They have a whole strategy where by they have mobile units assembled and waiting for dispacth to remote strecthes of highway where these remote service services can be delivered. This fits in with their whole military strategy which is to rapidly deploy around the countryside in a defensive posture with small units suitably equipped. This works especially well in Sweden which has more than it's share of bumps and hills, trees etc. to hide behind. None of it would do a lick of good in Iraq though. I must say the Swedes seem remarkably unembarrassed about their inability to project their forces to Iraq. Seriously, it seems like a very good plane well suited for keeping around to defend your territory while your real airforce is off bombing and attacking targets like real airforces do.

Quote Reply

Interrested RE:Saab Gripen, how does it rate? 9/20/2003 9:59:32 AM

The gripen is disigned for defensive perposes. At this job it's very capable. Little info: Close combat: Armament, Asraam, sidewinder and python 4, with Hmcd Delta canard is very agily lay-out. Due to low wingloading is has very good instant manouvering (roll/pitch) The t/w is currently at about unity at standaard air defense loading. (full fuel) This can be increased by installing the EF2000 (20000 LB 23000 optional)of the upgraded F414-GE-400 (22000 LB or 25400 uprated) Yes, the inlets will have to be modified. In the future: TVN will be available, equall to trance 3 typhoon TVN Furthermore, it's small!! Close in this will be a considerable advantage. BVR: It has currently a choise between the derby or a aim 120...meteor will be available. A new electronic scanned rader (amsaar tech) will be available. Data linking deminishes the need for a big radar and won't give your position away. Yes, the range is on the short side, but enough but it's purpose. New conformal tanks will increase on station time considerably. And NO the will NOT have a great drag penalty. COnformal F16 tank had about a 7-12 % increase in drag. The gripen will incure about the same penalty.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Saab Gripen, how does it rate? 9/22/2003 3:15:54 AM

Gripen is an utterly superfluous plane! First of all it export potential (yes I know it has been exported to South Africa; but under what conditions????) is nil. Secondly it is designed closely around a defence scenario that is not relevant any longer - its claimed flexibility is exaggerated - swing role plane with mission flexibility in the air? no range. Thirdly: The development of the Gripen has drained the Swedish defence budget to the extend, that the army has no resources - and the navy does not sail.

Quote Reply

jacques Thoma- Interrested-northenguy 9/22/2003 6:06:23 AM

Thomas I like to point out that the F16 is not as servicable as the Gripen. It doesn't have radar as capable as the Gripen. It is not as stealthy as the Gripen. No internal ECM it has to carry external ECM pods and chaff/flare dispensers. It doens't have datalink capability. Finally it is not a STOL aircraft. Denmark probably choose the F!6 becaus eof financial constrain. Interrested thank you for the hard data. It helped a lots to clarify the subject. Yes for the drag maybe it's not a major penalty. northenguy thank you for you reply and your inputs. The Gripen was built with a defense set of mind. Many countries in the world do not have ambition to project their power so they want a short range air force. The Gripen is an answer to their needs. As for Iraq: I can see where it can play a role. Let say that the usmc decide to have Gripen in their arsenal..they can take the Gripen into the field with them and have a compact portable airwing or let say that the raf decide to have a portable air force to provide ground support and battle field air defence for their troops in the fieled again the Gripen is an excellent choice. All and all Gripen is a very good airplane in my opinion.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:jacques 9/22/2003 6:53:09 AM

"Thomas I like to point out that the F16 is not as servicable as the Gripen. It doesn't have radar as capable as the Gripen. It is not as stealthy as the Gripen. No internal ECM it has to carry external ECM pods and chaff/flare dispensers. It doens't have datalink capability. Finally it is not a STOL aircraft. Denmark probably choose the F!6 becaus eof financial constraints" Seviceability: There are huge numbers of F-16's around so you can get spare parts. As to turn round time: Sweden has relatively few airbases, whereas (in particular) Denmark has lots of concrete (build by the Germans). The Swedish system only adresses one aspect of serviceability - i.e. reloading. Any battle damage to a Gripen will require landing at an appropiate base - sorry - out of range. The update F-16A has datalink capability. Nearly stealthy is the same as NOT stealthy, as detection range depends on fourth root of radar-cross-section. i.e. To reduce detection range to 10 % you have to reduce radar-cross-section 10000 times. A 100 time reduction will in most cases hardly be noticable. F-16 not a Stol aircraft. In air air configuration F-16 needs very little runway to get airborne. Landing quite a lot more; but it does not matter if you have enough concrete. Most roads leading to airstations can be used. Denmark choose the F-16 in competion with the Mirage F1-E and Svenska Aeroplan Aktie Bolag Viggen (F-37). The Swedish plane was far cheaper with a more attracktive compensation packet. Against was the poor performance unreliability and greed of the Swedish suppliers. Denmark have experience with Draken - remember. Plus the antiquity of the Viggen design which is as primitive as the Mirage F1. Gripen is just about catching up to the F-16 in the updated version. Financial constraints: Well as far as i remember an updated F-16A cost 10 mio.$ A Gripen should be around 40 mio.$ - even though they will take payment in butter-cookies. Gripen good plane: Let me ask what will you have: A squadron of F-16, that can be serviced by your allies, hook up to Awacs, launch any kind of weapons. OR A flight of Gripens standing stranded on your national roads, because they have no spares and they are out of the ammo you need????

Quote Reply

Massive RE:Saab Gripen, how does it rate? - Northernguy 9/22/2003 4:41:33 PM

Why would Sweden wish to have the capability to project force to Iraq?

Quote Reply

jacques RE:jacques 9/22/2003 5:27:26 PM

Thoma you started to make sense now. The F16 start to look more attractive. I forgot to take "battle damage factor into consideration". Why do you need STOL when you have lots of concerete. For 1/4 the cost of the Gripen I will forgone internal ECM anytime. You are right about lower RCS make very little difference. In fact I like the superb field of view the F16 has which the Gripen doesn't have, but one final thing though. The Gripen can accept MICA air to air missile but the F16 can't. Off course its' a minor consideration if you look at the total big picture. okay now to answer Massive. I idn;t say Swedes want to project thier power into Iraq. northenguy want to see if the Gripen can be used in Iraq so I gave him a scenerio where the Gripen can play if the US or the British have the Gripen in their inventories.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:jacques 9/23/2003 3:01:20 AM

One thing You all got to realise about Swedish arms exports: Sweden is a small country, that has tried to maintain a domestic weapons production to secure their neutrality and independence of the rest of the world. This means they try to flog their goods to every Tom, Dick and Harry. With the exception of the Bofors guns it means that very specilised and rather expensive weapons systems are marketed with a lot of sales hype to countries that have no use for them: South Africa does not have a scenario where a bunch of jet trainers, old Mirage III and V wouldn't be perfect. It's a large country where lack of range is a severe penalty and they do not have quite the snug infrastructure Sweden has to make roadbasing a smart option. Brazil: Who is going to bomb them. One scenario that would have made some sense was the Falklands war, where a squadron of Viggens on Goose Green could have made a difference. The USA has the monroe-doctrin, that keeps advanced weapons from the hotheads of South America, which have kept major wars away from the continent - they have problems enough as it is. That's the reson they won't sell to Brazil. The Swedish neutrality is going down the drains, as it is not possible to maintain a viable weapons industry, that covers all needs with 7 million inhabitants. Next question: Why stick to it???

Quote Reply

Interrested RE:jacques 9/24/2003 8:30:24 AM

a little lists of comments: -A F16A MLU can have a link 16 datelink, which is, I'm sorry to say, inferior. (lower data rate and more suseptable to jamming) But yes, it's compatible with the US systems so it's probably the best choise...but not the most capable one!! (BTW they are working on a fix to make the gripen compatible with NATO (link 16)standards) -The lower RCS is: Bullsh*t, I agree, but have never said anything otherwise. In a close combat situation the small size would be a visual (!!!) advantage... -If somebody is wondering: NO, the small engine still makes it a good IR target. Modern IR sensors really only need a small signature to home in on.. The visual constraints of the gripen are just about equal to the F16. The canopy is longer so they can end it more abruptly. overall visability is about equall. The canopy arch is a small disadvantage. (The F16 canopy sometimes even distorts because of it's curvature.) But, at high G's the f16 driver will find it difficult to look backwards due to the high inclination of the seat. The Gripen pilot has much less troubles. -Anyways, the F16 will be replaced with the JSF in 10 to 15 years. This means that there will be less money spent in mayor upgrades. The F16A's will not keep up with the gripen. (yes, the Block 60 is very very capable.But you can't upgrade a block 10 into a block 60 because of major structural differences A further a bl 60 weighs about 9500 kg witch puts it into the Ef2000/rafale catagory...and than it loses....sadly) Furthermore, the bl 10/15 are starting to run high on hours. A new gripen can be used for much longer, no new purchases, less costly. - a F16a MLU costs about 3400 euro's per hour, a gripen about 2000 euro's.... The gripen however can be easily upgraded. The gripen relies much more on software instead of hardware (incryption, datalinks, displayed info etc). Currently it's using about 30% of it's computing power. Extra additions can be housed. - The range of a gripen with confomal fuel tanks and 2 drop tanks will be better than the current F16's with 2 drop tanks. ( basic gripen: internal 2200 KG + 1200 KG conformal + 2000 drop tanks is 5400 KG. Basic F16: internal 3600 kg + 2800 drop tanks is 6400 kg. But the 29000 pounds 8500 kg F16 has more drag and uses much more fuel when cruising than the 18000 pounds 6500 kg gripen. It's small size, clean package small engine will give a drag advatage exceeding the 18% fuel disadvantage...easy....surprising isn't it? And if you don't believe this than take a look at some other numbers: Say they are both use max dry thrust and have about the same speed. F16:F100-pw-299 dry thrust 17800 sfc 0.726 5874 kg/h.-->65 min flight time Gripen rm12 dry thrust 12141 sfc 0.853 4707 kg/h--> 68 min flight time. Thus they are about equal. I know this is a very rough comparison but, It will give you some food for thought won't it? :) Yes, I know the F16 can be equiped qith CFT but the F16 A models can't. Yes, I know the gripen doensn't have the CFT right now, but they will be available from 2004 Last thing: a Gripen with AA armament, and 20 min reserve can land in 500m and can take of with full fuel in 400m. When your precious runways are turned into king size fox holes you might wan't to think this is a advantage.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 NEXT