# JAS 39 Gripen is growing up....



## Lucky13 (Jan 15, 2010)

*The Future is Gripen NG*
Gripen Next Generation (NG) is a fully NATO interoperable, true multi-role fighter with outstanding availability, tailored for the future Net Centric Warfare (NCW) environment. Gripen NG will meet the demanding operational requirements of the 21st Century Air Force and its unrivalled multi-role capability provides excellent tactical flexibility. 

Gripen NG offers operational dominance and flexibility with superior mission survivability. Air-to-air superiority is guaranteed with METEOR, AMRAAM, IRIS-T, AIM-9X missile capability and supercruise. Air-to-surface capability is assured through the use of the lastest generation precision weapons and targeting sensors. Gripen NG’s superior situation awareness is ensured through an AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar, IRST (Infrared Search And Track) passive sensor, HMD (helmet-mounted display), cutting edge avionics, next generation data processing and a state-of-the-art cockpit.

*Proven Net Centric Capabilities*
These features together with proven Net Centric Capabilities, including advanced data communications, dual datalinks, satellite communications and video links, coupled with enhanced range and endurance due to increased fuel capacity and increased thrust from its powerful General Electric F414G Turbofan engine makes Gripen NG the ideal independent fighter of choice. Gripen NG offers outstanding agility and high instantaneous turn rates providing unrivalled performance in close combat. On board sensors, in combination with HMD/NVG, deliver the ability to detect and destroy a wide variety of targets, even at night or in poor weather conditions.

*Built-in growth potential*
State-of-the-art technology, modern materials, integrated computer systems and advanced aerodynamics have produced a high performance fighter with a very low lifecycle cost. Cost-effective, reliable, versatile and with a significant built-in growth potential, Gripen NG is both fully NATO and globally interoperable.

Gripen offers comprehensive industrial co-operation including technology transfer. We have a proven, unrivalled track record of delivering industrial co-operation programmes tailor-made to meet our customers’ strategic priorities and to produce real economic growth and social value far beyond the fighter aircraft contract. A wide range of flexible alternative pricing and financing solutions are available, backed by the Swedish Government, ensuring an affordable solution.

*Gripen NG Features*

*Netcentric Fighter*
- A truly Network connected next generation multi-role fighter with the world’s most highly developed secure and multi-frequency data link. 

*Superior Sensor Fusion*
– Latest generation avionic mission system with high computation power operating on ultra fast digital data bus highways. 

*Smart Digital Cockpit*
- An advanced fully digital cockpit layout with large colour, Multi-Functional Displays (MFD) and Hands-On-Throttle-And-Stick (HOTAS) provides the pilot with a superior situation awareness.

*First to know - first to act*
- A combination of low radar, IR and visual signatures, along with a state-of-the-art AESA radar, an Infra Red Search and Track (IRST) sensor and superior sensor fusion, including world leading new generation weapons integration, ensure a high hit ratio in any engagement. 

*Outstanding Agility*
- The world’s most agile fighter for close combat. A combination of advanced aerodynamic layout, utilizing 
a combined close-coupled canard – delta configuration and a triplex, digital Fly-By-Wire Flight Control System (FCS). A winning Dog-Fight capability in combination with the latest generation high off-bore sight missiles and Helmet Mounted Display (HMD). 

*High Operational Tempo*
- Gripen’s high operational availability, rapid turnaround and minimal support requirements enables 
sustained high sortie rates providing Commanders the ability to meet the most demanding operations with minimum resources. 

*Affordability*
- Gripen NG achieves the lowest operating cost of any modern fighter. This is accomplished by combining advanced system design and modern commercial off the shelf (COTS) components with the highly reliable and powerful General Electric F414G engine.

*Future development*
- The Gripen is built to be adaptable to changing threats and operational requirements that a modern Air 
Force faces.

The NG version flew last year....

*Binding tenders around the world*
Saab is actively marketing Gripen around the world. As of early 2009, there are _binding Gripen tenders_ for Denmark, India, Romania, Brazil and Switzerland. In addition, Saab has responded to requests for information from Bulgaria, Croatia, and the Netherlands. 

What does that mean??


----------



## seesul (Jan 15, 2010)

Finally! Our Air Force use 14 Grippens but as I heard they are not compatible with NATO standards which really surprised me when I found it out...who could sign this contract I really don´t know. This deal was even interrogated by FBI...


----------



## Glider (Jan 15, 2010)

I admit that I always had a soft spot for the Grippen. I tend to view it as the next F16, with the F35, Typhoon as the F15's in the next generation of fighters. Very effective but more affordable.

With the inevitable Defence budget cuts that are on the way I wouldn't be taken aback if the UK dropped the F35 and purchased Grippens.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 15, 2010)

Lucky13 said:


> ...there are _binding Gripen tenders_ for Denmark, India, Romania, Brazil and Switzerland.
> 
> In addition, Saab has responded to requests for information from Bulgaria, Croatia, and the Netherlands.
> 
> What does that mean?


Probably press naivete
if the countries mentioned have been actively tendering the market for a replacement fighter and Saab's tender was approved and accepted, then to be worth the paper it was written on it would be (mutually) binding anyway. That's how I understand it, RFTs are written at the stage where things are beginning to tighten up between customer and vendor and will be used to draw up contracts (the binding bit) and specifics on issues such as a strict delivery criteria - a misjudged or poorly executed one can and usually does hurt the vendor.

Bulgaria, Croatia and the Netherlands are still at RFI stage where the customer has identified a loose fit between his requirements and what the vendor is offering. Information gathering, nothing binding at this stage of the process, useful time for the vendor to sell himself to the customer on any points he feels the customer hasn't considered.


----------



## Butters (Jan 15, 2010)

The Gripen NG is going to look more and more attractive as the F-35, aka TFX II: The Sequel, continues its accelerating death spiral into over-priced oblivion.

Even the US Navy is getting cold feet...

USN officials raise concern about F-35 affordability

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2010)

Butters said:


> The Gripen NG is going to look more and more attractive as the F-35, aka TFX II: The Sequel, continues its accelerating death spiral into over-priced oblivion.
> 
> Even the US Navy is getting cold feet...
> 
> ...



Cold feet??? A bit exaggerated there don't you think????

The article is about NAVAIR's head bean counter - sure he's going to raise "concerns."

Meanwhile....

F-35B passes more flight tests | 35b, aircraft, reported - Local - ENCToday


----------



## Maximowitz (Jan 15, 2010)

Being Swedish this aircraft will come with all lights permanently on, a weapons warning light that reads "Are you sure you want to do this? Have you considered humanitarian negotiation?" and a voucher for 2000 SEK of Ikea bedroom furniture.

Do you think they take Mastercard?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 15, 2010)




----------



## A4K (Jan 16, 2010)

I never use to think much of Gripen when I first saw her (static display), but live performances at the Kecskeméti airshow in 2008 changed that competely...she (and the Eurofighter Typhoon) were by far the most impressive aircraft, easily beating out the F-16s, Mirage 2000, Harrier, etc...made the F-15, F-18, and MiG-29 look like absolute dinosaurs...


----------



## seesul (Jan 16, 2010)

I had the same feeling like you when I saw Grippen and Eurofighter 'live' at NATO Days in Ostrava last year but still can´t understand how such a machine can´t be equipped by NATO standards...


----------



## A4K (Jan 16, 2010)

Hungary uses them now too Roman, and apparently it's atleast partially to do with the stores - some of the Swedish missiles (Matra etc) for which it's capable aren't classed as being "to NATO standards" (ie, you don't buy them from America , the way I interepret it).
If what I heard is right, Hungary has to change the weapon pylon's and (possibly) some systems, and re-quip with NATO-approve hardware for them to be 'NATO compatible'...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2010)

The Grippen is an outstanding aircraft but then again look at its legacy and what has come before it. The Swedes always produce class one hardware.

With that said, the competition against the F-35 is going to come down to need and money. I could see the Grippen serving perfectly in the smaller air forces of eastern Europe where a limited range mission for a multi role fighter seems apparent. Larger countries that need to project power or take the offense hundreds or thousands of miles from home in areas where the luxury of full length runways will be void. If affordable, I see the F-35 for that role.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 16, 2010)

Just for curiousity, what's the cost per frame for the F-35 v Gripen?


----------



## riacrato (Jan 16, 2010)

As of now that will be hard to establish for the F-35.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2010)

Lucky13 said:


> Just for curiousity, what's the cost per frame for the F-35 v Gripen?



Right now I show about $140 million for the F-35, $65 million for the Grippen



riacrato said:


> As of now that will be hard to establish for the F-35.



Depends what the operator wants - I think more smaller countries will go with the Grippen. I think you're going to see your larger countries go with the F-35, especially if they have received a contract to build a portion of the aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2010)

This is how the current NAVAIR F-35 procurement will go

Year Aircraft Average unit cost/aircraft

FY2008: 6 $184.2 million
FY2009: 8 $200.2 million
FY2010: 18 $172.3 million
FY2011: 19 $146.4 million
FY2012: 40 $124.4 million
FY2013: 42 $115.1 million
Remainder: 547 $109.3 million
Total: 680 $115 million


----------



## riacrato (Jan 16, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Right now I show about $140 million for the F-35, $65 million for the Grippen
> 
> 
> 
> Depends what the operator wants - I think more smaller countries will go with the Grippen. I think you're going to see your larger countries go with the F-35, especially if they have received a contract to build a portion of the aircraft.



It'll be interesting now that the cards are more or less on the table. There's still the Rafale and the Eurofighter, too. Although atm the latter is seriously handicapped imo, especially when it comes to air-to-ground capabilities.

Gripen is the oldest of the lot but probably very mature and far along as far as learning curve goes. Not surprised by the price spread.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 16, 2010)

Naturally politics will play a bigger role than capability in deciding what gets chosen. A recent Norwegian report defied common sense and logic by publicly claiming that the F-35 was cheaper than the Gripen! The only parallel I can think of was 45 years ago when US influence (possibly) or idiocy (even odds) led to a UK report that claimed that buying the F-111 (still beset by its own problems) would be cheaper than continuing with the TSR 2, despite the latter having 2 complete prototypes, a third almost complete, and component manufacture already underway for the first 40 aircraft! What a waste.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2010)

riacrato said:


> It'll be interesting now that the cards are more or less on the table. There's still the Rafale and the Eurofighter, too. Although atm the latter is seriously handicapped imo, especially when it comes to air-to-ground capabilities.
> 
> Gripen is the oldest of the lot but probably very mature and far along as far as learning curve goes. Not surprised by the price spread.



Agree....

You also have to consider how quick each manufacturer could get their product delivered and what kind of post delivery support the aircraft will have. What good is saving money on a procurement when it takes you 5 years to get a field of 40 or 50 fighters deployed or have half of them on the ground because lack of spares?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Naturally politics will play a bigger role than capability in deciding what gets chosen. A recent Norwegian report defied common sense and logic by publicly claiming that the F-35 was cheaper than the Gripen! The only parallel I can think of was 45 years ago when US influence (possibly) or idiocy (even odds) led to a UK report that claimed that buying the F-111 (still beset by its own problems) would be cheaper than continuing with the TSR 2, despite the latter having 2 complete prototypes, a third almost complete, and component manufacture already underway for the first 40 aircraft! What a waste.



True as well, and those countries who have a piece of the F-35 will face the pressure to procure the aircraft as well.


----------



## Butters (Jan 16, 2010)

The F-35 Aardvark Too is simply carrying on the Lockheed Martin tradition of big promises and lousy bang for the buck. As witnessed by the $350 M F-22 and the JSSM (13 yrs development and a 40% success rate at $700,000+ a pop...)

To say that the Golden CALF has feet of clay is an understatement. FBJ made reference to a recent flight of the B model, but failed to mention that the program has only completed 3% of the originally scheduled flight test program. And it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be getting an operational F-35 of any kind for the low, low price of $140 million. It is years behind schedule,and its purported invincibility is based on little more than conjecture, hype, and a wilful disregard of both the laws of physics and the known capabilities of near-peer adversaries.

JL


----------



## Maximowitz (Jan 16, 2010)

^^^
So, not a fan then?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 16, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Right now I show about $140 million for the F-35, $65 million for the Grippen
> 
> 
> 
> Depends what the operator wants - I think more smaller countries will go with the Grippen. I think you're going to see your larger countries go with the F-35, especially if they have received a contract to build a portion of the aircraft.





FLYBOYJ said:


> This is how the current NAVAIR F-35 procurement will go
> 
> Year Aircraft Average unit cost/aircraft
> 
> ...



Crikey Joe, that's some difference!  Thanks! As time goes, Gripen will become cheaper too and upgraded. 
Another thing that I've been wondering about, what do you have to do to the engine to make it a 'super cruise' engine?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2010)

Butters said:


> The F-35 Aardvark Too is simply carrying on the Lockheed Martin tradition of big promises and lousy bang for the buck. As witnessed by the $350 M F-22 and the JSSM (13 yrs development and a 40% success rate at $700,000+ a pop...)


Once again you're talking out of your ass. 40% success rate??? Where did you come up with that crap?!?!? 4 units failed during testing - it is called "testing" and done for a reason...

BTW you mean "JASSM" 

And since the time of the test failures (which were attributed to launcher and propulsion system problems) the thing has been fixed as promised. The first missile of its kind, again it would be expected to have problems. AND Lockheed HAS been put on notice - make it work or program terminated.

As we speak the F-22 MC rate increases and it approaching 80%, no difference than any other new fighter plane.

The 13 year development was not the fault of the fighter by rather set by funding and priorities. After the first flight a lot of the program development sat dormant (look who was president at the time)



Butters said:


> To say that the Golden CALF has feet of clay is an understatement. FBJ made reference to a recent flight of the B model, but failed to mention that the program has only completed 3% of the originally scheduled flight test program. And it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be getting an operational F-35 of any kind for the low, low price of $140 million. It is years behind schedule,and its purported invincibility is based on little more than conjecture, hype, and a wilful disregard of both the laws of physics and the known capabilities of near-peer adversaries.
> 
> JL



Yes - 3% of the test mission was completed - *the aircraft was delivered at the end of December*. Given the time and work schedule its right where it should be, and yes there may be arising problems and some more delays, but the bottom line is the aircraft is here to stay and it will follow in the footstep (and them some) of the aircraft it will be replacing.

"Years behind schedule?" There are delays (again just like any new combat aircraft program) but far from failure - again you make baseless assumptions with no credibility, experience or proof to back up any of your claims.

The CAF has flown Lockheed products for over 50 years and even built some aircraft and sub assemblies under contact and under license. Is your comment "Lockheed Martin tradition of big promises and lousy bang for the buck" reflective as part of the Canadian aerospace industry as well?!?!?

BTW - 21 CP-140s with thousands of hours on them, purchased on an offset program that not only gave money back to Canada but employed a few thousand Canadians for at least 10 years - so much for big promises...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2010)

Lucky13 said:


> Crikey Joe, that's some difference!  Thanks! As time goes, Gripen will become cheaper too and upgraded.


It will, and again, its going to be up to the operator, their needs and what they can afford. I see "the big dogs" buying the F-35, but at the same time they'll be investing in its production.



Lucky13 said:


> Another thing that I've been wondering about, what do you have to do to the engine to make it a 'super cruise' engine?


"A lot of thrust!" 

Actually its the airframe engine combo that will enable the aircraft to aerodynamically reach supersonic speeds at the cruise settings of the propulsion system.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 16, 2010)

So, no serious 'surgery' then? Was kinda curious, going from a 'slow boat' to a 'super cruiser'.... Cheers Joe!


----------



## riacrato (Jan 16, 2010)

Which of the recent large military aircraft procurement programs did not exceed its budget and fail the schedule? The straight-through developments of the cold war era are a past.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Which of the recent large military aircraft procurement programs did not exceed its budget and fail the schedule? The straight-through developments of the cold war era are a past.


Very true riacrato. There is a lot of accountability US Defense Contractors have to be held to when compared to 30 years ago, but when you're building complex high dollar state of the art military hardware there will be cost and schedule over runs. Sometimes they are caused by the contractor (which the media likes to exploit) other times delays could be caused by government directed suppliers not fulfilling performing and in some cases even the customer inducing delays and cost over runs by changing schedules and contract requirements.

The US Defence Procurement system isn't perfect but be rest assured it will not back a program that continues to have unexplained setbacks but at the same time will make allotments on projects that offer promise and quality in the end.


----------



## Butters (Jan 16, 2010)

FBJ,

Note that the '40% rate' etc was in reference to the JSSM. If you'd actually paid attention rather than reflexively jumping on me for talking out of my ass (And I'm a tyro in that regard compared to the LM and other JSF shills...)you might have noticed the $700,000 price tag. After all, we both know that you'd need three times that amount just to buy a single disposable canopy for the F-22...

Ditto the '3%' . That was not about one STOVL test-bed, but the scheduled F-35 flight test program in toto.( As was clearly stated)Which by the end of 2009 had only achieved 3% of what was scheduled to be accomplished by that date. And I'm not making assumptions or unsupported assertions about the delays in the F-35 program. That it is far behind schedule is a matter of public record, as you well know. Assumptions and unsupported assertions I leave to the JSF booster club. They like'em better than I do. Speaking of which, where is your evidence to support the assertion that, "...its the airframe engine combo that will enable the aircraft to aerodynamically reach supersonic speeds at the cruise settings of the propulsion system."?

I'll concede the CP-140, and other LM legacy a/c, but the fact remains that the tangible results of the F-22, JSSM, and F-35 programs have all failed to match LM's promises, whether in regards to schedules, affordability,or maintainability. Not that it's all their fault of course. They're only giving the USAF/DOD and the pork-hungry Congressman the hi-tech gee whiz fairy tales they want to hear... 

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2010)

Butters said:


> FBJ,
> 
> Note that the '40% rate' etc was in reference to the JSSM. If you'd actually paid attention rather than reflexively jumping on me for talking out of my ass (And I'm a tyro in that regard compared to the LM and other JSF shills...)you might have noticed the $700,000 price tag. After all, we both know that you'd need three times that amount just to buy a single disposable canopy for the F-22...


And as you see I gave the amount of Failures your 40% came from - 4 failures DURING testing. Despite the issues, folks are still buying the thing....

"a single disposable canopy for the F-22"

And do you have component replacement data indicating WHEN an F-22 canopy would be replaced???? 

I worked on F-86s that had the same canopy from day one!!!


Butters said:


> Ditto the '3%' . That was not about one STOVL test-bed, but the scheduled F-35 flight test program in toto.( As was clearly stated)Which by the end of 2009 had only achieved 3% of what was scheduled to be accomplished by that date. And I'm not making assumptions or unsupported assertions about the delays in the F-35 program. That it is far behind schedule is a matter of public record, as you well know. Assumptions and unsupported assertions I leave to the JSF booster club. They like'em better than I do.


And is the customer dissatisfied with the contractor's current performance, progress of the program or has the DoD threatened the contractor with default??? NO!!!!



Butters said:


> Speaking of which, where is your evidence to support the assertion that, "...its the airframe engine combo that will enable the aircraft to aerodynamically reach supersonic speeds at the cruise settings of the propulsion system."?


Simple - You look at the power lever, set it to about 93% and watch the airspeed indicator....

Lucky 13 was asking in general how an aircraft is able to go tp supercruise.




Butters said:


> I'll concede the CP-140, and other LM legacy a/c, but the fact remains that the tangible results of the F-22, JSSM, and F-35 programs have all failed to match LM's promises, whether in regards to schedules, affordability,or maintainability. Not that it's all their fault of course. They're only giving the USAF/DOD and the pork-hungry Congressman the hi-tech gee whiz fairy tales they want to hear...
> 
> JL



And again, with both programs just coming to maturity, you're assumptions fall short of real world events. The only REAL problem LM has had to deal with as far as contract default is the JASSM and rightfully so, if they don't perform they deserve to loose that one - but comparing contract performance on that program to the F-22/ F-35 is like comparing apples, oranges and pears.

BTW - this was recently sent to me....

A Senate's Document about the claims recently made against the F-22A: 

" F-22 Assertions and Facts 
July 2009 

Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne. 

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It?s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity. 


Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15. 

Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K. 


Assertion: The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings. 

Fact: Stealth is a breakthrough system capability and it requires regular maintenance, just like electronics or hydraulics. The skin of the F-22 is a part of the stealth capability and it requires routine maintenance. About one-third of the F-22?s current maintenance activity is associated with the stealth system, including the skin. It is important to recognize the F-22 currently meets or exceeds its maintenance requirements, and the operational capability of the F-22 is outstanding, in part due to its stealth system. 


Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin. 

Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well. 


Assertion: We're not seeing the mission capable rates expected and key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years. 

Facts: The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide. 


Assertion: The F-22 can only fly an average of 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission. 


Facts: Reliability is measured by Mean Time Between Maintenance (MTBM). One of the F-22 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) is to have an MTBM of 3.0 hours at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. Through 2008, F-22s averaged 2.0 hours MTBM while the fleet has accumulated 50,000 flight hours. The F-22 is on-track to meet or exceed 3.0 hours of MTBM at system maturity, projected to occur in late 2010, and the latest delivered F-22s, known as Lot 6 jets, are exhibiting an MTBM of 3.2 hours.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2010)

Part II

Assertion: The plane's million-dollar radar-absorbing canopy delaminates and loses its strength and finish. 


Facts: The F-22 canopy balances multiple requirements: mechanical strength, environmental resistance, optical clarity and other requirements. Initial designs for the canopy did not achieve the full life expectancy of 800 hours. The canopy has been 
redesigned and currently two companies are producing qualified canopy transparencies that meet full service life durability of 800 hours. 


Assertion: The F-22 has significant structural design problems that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe. 


Facts: The F-22 had a series of structural models that were tested throughout its development in a building block manner. Lockheed Martin completed static and fatigue testing in 2005 on two early production representative airframes. The results of those tests required upgrades to the airframe in a few highly stressed locations. Follow up component level testing was completed and structural redesigns were verified and implemented into the production line. For aircraft that were delivered 

prior to design change implementation, structural retrofit repairs are being implemented by a funded program called the F-22 Structural Retrofit Program. Structural reinforcements are common during the life of all fighters and have occurred, or are 
occurring, on the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. 


Assertion: The F-22 has a significant design flaw in the fuel flow system that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe. 

Facts: The F-22 fuel system has not required redesign. Similar to other aircraft, the systems on the F-22 are continually being enhanced by a reliability and maintainability improvement program. For example, early fuel pumps turned out to not be as reliable as desired and have subsequently been replaced by more reliable pumps. 



Assertion: Follow-on operational tests in 2007 raised operational suitability issues and noted that the airplane still does not meet most of its KPPs. 

Facts: The F-22 has 11 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). The F-22 exceeds 5 KPPs (Radar Cross Section, Supercruise, Acceleration, Flight Radius, and Radar Detection Range). The F-22 meets 4 KPPs (Maneuverability, Payload, Sortie 
Generation and Interoperability). The remaining 2 KPPs are sustainment metrics (MTBM and C-17 Loads) that are to be evaluated at weapon system maturity -- which is defined as 100,000 total flight hours and is projected to occur in late 2010. These two sustainment metrics are on-track to be met at 100,000 flight hours. 



Assertion: The F-22 costs $350M per aircraft. 

Facts: The F-22s currently being delivered have a flyaway cost of $142.6M each, which is the cost to build and deliver each aircraft. This number does not include the costs for research and development (that were incurred since 1991), military construction to house the aircraft, or operations and maintenance costs. 



Assertion: The F-22 needs $8 billion of improvements in order to operate properly. 

Facts: Similar to every other fighter in the U.S. inventory, there is a plan to regularly incorporate upgrades into the F-22. F-22s in their current configuration are able to dominate today?s battlefield and future upgrades are planned to ensure the F-22 remains the world's most dominant fighter. F-22 Increment 3.1, which will begin entering the field in late 2010, adds synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode in the APG-77 radar, and a capability to employ small diameter bomb (SDB). Increment 3.1 is in flight test today at Edwards AFB, CA. Increment 3.2 is being planned and will add AIM-120D and AIM-9X weapons along with additional capabilities. 


Assertion: F-22 production uses a shim line and national spreading of suppliers has cut quality, thus the F-22 lacks interchangeable parts. 

Fact: The F-22 does not have a shim line. During the earliest stages of production while tooling was undergoing development, there were a few aircraft with slight differences which were subsequently modified. The F-22 supplier base is the best in the industry, as demonstrated by the aircraft?s high quality and operational performance. All operational F-22s today have interchangeable parts. 



Assertion: Are these accusations in the recent lawsuit valid? 

Facts: We believe the allegations are without merit. While we are aware of the Olsen lawsuit, the Corporation has not yet been served in this matter. We deny Mr. Olsen?s allegations and will vigorously defend this matter if and when it is served. 


Assertion: The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. 

Facts: The F-22 was declared operational in 2005, after air dominance was achieved in South West Asian Theater of conflict. Due to the absence of air-to-air or surface-to-air threats in these two theaters, stealthy air dominance assets were not an imperative. 4th generation fighters operate safely and effectively supporting the ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best weapon may be the one that isn?t used but instead deters a conflict before it begins. Just as we have Trident submarines with nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles that were not used in the current conflicts, we need air superiority capabilities that provide deterrence. The F-22 provides those capabilities for today?s contingencies as well as for future conflict. It is important to remember that the F-15 was operational for 15 years before it was first used in combat by the USAF." 

F-22 Myths Debunked

I think in the end, that "LM CP-140 Legacy" will prevail

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2010)




----------



## Glider (Jan 21, 2010)

I have read a slightly worrying report on the F35. I understand that the director of operational test and evaluation (DOTE) has written a report that concludes that Lockheed is struggling to deliver and fly Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft on time. The delays could extend the development phase until mid-2016.

The problems are the sort of thing that often happens in aircraft development but in times like this where budgets are tight and the Gripen is a known quantity that is in production. Some overseas customers may start thinking of a change in direction.

Items mentioned include
a) The STOVL has flown 16 times whereas the schedule shows it should be 168 flights
b) The avionics testbed has cleared 7 items instead of 284

Some small changes to the design to contain weight growth are causing concern
a) Removal of some dry bay fire extinguishers
b) The elimination of shut-off fuses for engine fueldraulics lines

That said things are going well in other areas
a) Structural testing has gone very well
b) The STOVL aircraft entered flight-testing with 64% of their allowable envelope cleared. The programme's goal is to clear 80% of the envelope in static testing by mid-2011.

Lockheed are saying that they can make up the difference but the director of operational test and evaluation is being more cautious.

A different item but related to the F35 is that the USAF have for some reason now realised that the F35 and F22 cannot talk to each other or exchange data in the air. Hard to believe but true. A five year project has been set up to integrate the Multi Functional Advanced Data Link (MFADL) of the aircraft to overcome this problem.
This may not however be as straight forward as it seems. The MFADL is the only realistic option but the amount of data it can exchange is very limited and in five years time may not be sufficient. Personally with the size of the pipe being a potential problem I would expect it to take longer than 5 years for a full system to be in place.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 21, 2010)

I believe the Gripen would be foolish buy for Canada they do not have the range for anything useful,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2010)

Glider said:


> Personally with the size of the pipe being a potential problem I would expect it to take longer than 5 years for a full system to be in place.



Great info Glider and recently read a similar piece (I'll try to find it). I think Lockheed will address the fixes of the problems based on what is acceptable to the DoD, lets wait and see. Be rest assured however that when push comes to shove, Lockheed will have to jump through their butts to comply with the contract - or else!



pbfoot said:


> I believe the Gripen would be foolish buy for Canada they do not have the range for anything useful,


Agree - the only "work around" I see is expanding a proposed fleet size and also buying tankers to support the fleet and mission - $


----------



## Glider (Jan 22, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> I believe the Gripen would be foolish buy for Canada they do not have the range for anything useful,



I agree with this for Canada and also for Australia but for European countries where range isn't as important, the Gripen would be a tempting option if you want a low risk but still very effective fighter with secure costs to replace your F16's.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 24, 2010)

From Wiki.....

*Gripen NG and Sea Gripen*
_A two-seat "New Technology Demonstrator" has been built, and was presented on 23 April 2008. It has increased fuel capacity, a more powerful powerplant, increased payload capacity, upgraded avionics and other improvements. The new aircraft is also referred to as the "Gripen Demo".

The new Gripen NG (Next Generation) will have many new parts and will be powered by the General Electric F414G, a development of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's engine. The engine will produce 20% more thrust at 98 kN (22,000 lbf), enabling a supercruise speed of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air missiles.

Compared to the Gripen D, the Gripen NG's max takeoff weight has increased from 14,000 to 16,000 kg (30,900–35,300 lb) with an increase in empty weight of 200 kg (440 lb). Due to relocated main landing gear, the internal fuel capacity has increased by 40%, which will increase ferry range to 4,070 km (2,200 nmi). The new undercarriage configuration also allows for the addition of two heavy stores pylons to the fuselage. Its PS-05/A radar adds a new AESA antenna for flight testing beginning in mid-2009.

Gripen Demo's maiden flight was conducted on 27 May 2008. The test flight lasted about 30 minutes and reached a maximum altitude of about 6,400 meters (21,000 ft). On 21 January 2009, the Gripen Demo flew at Mach 1.2 without reheat to test its supercruise capability.

Saab did study work on a aircraft carrier based version in the 1990s. In 2009, Saab launched the Sea Gripen project in response to India's request for information for a aircraft carrier aircraft. Brazil also has a potential carrier aircraft need._

Will be interesting to see how they're gonna solve this. I know that Viggens (J 37) landing gear was strong enough for carrier landings, but still. And, if they did a study back in the '90's, they might have other aces up their sleeves.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 25, 2010)

Glider said:


> A different item but related to the F35 is that the USAF have for some reason now realised that the F35 and F22 cannot talk to each other or exchange data in the air. Hard to believe but true. A five year project has been set up to integrate the Multi Functional Advanced Data Link (MFADL) of the aircraft to overcome this problem.
> This may not however be as straight forward as it seems. The MFADL is the only realistic option but the amount of data it can exchange is very limited and in five years time may not be sufficient. Personally with the size of the pipe being a potential problem I would expect it to take longer than 5 years for a full system to be in place.



This is not an F-35 issue. This is a US Armed Forces (US Air Force in particular in this case) issue. The inability for the F-35 to communicate with the F-22, is indicative of a lack of comm integration amongst platforms. Not an issue of the F-35 "underperforming". Such press releases are typically tied to airframe procurement to put it in bad light, but it is rather an Air Force system engineering shortcoming. The same issue exists with AWACS, F-15s, F-16s, A-10Cs, RQ-4s, etc. F-35s are getting the latest in open architecture comm systems. It is the other 30-40 year old airframes that require the upgrade.

And with regard to the Gripen satisfying European short range needs. Okay. But as long as Europe thinks in balkanized fighting mentality, the European Union airborne assets will continue to be individual sovereign specific and European Union strategic needs will never be met. If that's okay fine. But frankly, I'm tired of my tax dollars going overseas.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 25, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> _This is not an F-35 issue. This is a US Armed Forces (US Air Force in particular in this case) issue. The inability for the F-35 to communicate with the F-22, is indicative of a lack of comm integration amongst platforms. Not an issue of the F-35 "underperforming". Such press releases are typically tied to airframe procurement to put it in bad light, but it is rather an Air Force system engineering shortcoming. The same issue exists with AWACS, F-15s, F-16s, A-10Cs, RQ-4s, etc. F-35s are getting the latest in open architecture comm systems. It is the other 30-40 year old airframes that require the upgrade._
> 
> _And with regard to the Gripen satisfying European short range needs. Okay. But as long as Europe thinks in balkanized fighting mentality, the European Union airborne assets will continue to be individual sovereign specific and European Union strategic needs will never be met. If that's okay fine. But frankly, I'm tired of my tax dollars going overseas._



Is that the computers etc., not being able to communicate between pilots/airframes regarding targets etc.?

Would you mind awfully explain, so that little old me understand Matt?


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> This is not an F-35 issue. This is a US Armed Forces (US Air Force in particular in this case) issue. The inability for the F-35 to communicate with the F-22, is indicative of a lack of comm integration amongst platforms. Not an issue of the F-35 "underperforming".


I never said that it was an F35 Issue. What I said was that the USAF had realised that the F22 and the F35 could not communicate with each other, no more, no less.


> Such press releases are typically tied to airframe procurement to put it in bad light, but it is rather an Air Force system engineering shortcoming. The same issue exists with AWACS, F-15s, F-16s, A-10Cs, RQ-4s, etc. F-35s are getting the latest in open architecture comm systems. It is the other 30-40 year old airframes that require the upgrade.


Not quite. The problem lies in the failure of the USAF to identify what is a basic requirement, i.e. that planes can communicate with each other and incorporate it into the requirement. It isn't the fault of the aircraft designers and engineers who built what they were asked to build.
Its a difficult requirment to meet for two reasons
1) The F22 as we all know is based around stealth and any transmission compromises that ability.
2) The amount of data may swamp the size of the pipe.



> And with regard to the Gripen satisfying European short range needs. Okay. But as long as Europe thinks in balkanized fighting mentality, the European Union airborne assets will continue to be individual sovereign specific and European Union strategic needs will never be met. If that's okay fine. But frankly, I'm tired of my tax dollars going overseas.


You make it sound as if the Gripen is a twice around the airfield sports plane such as an early Mig 21 which is hardly accurate. As for your Tax dollars, you don't seem to mind european currency coming to the US, why should europeans not feel the same way?

You have touched on somthing that I first mentioned a couple of years ago. In the 70's, 80's and early 90's there were two fighters that ruled, the F15 and the F16, Europe and the USSR didn't have anything close. We had Mirages, Viggens and Tornado's but nothing in the same league.
As a result most of the worlds airforces came to the USA and this helped a) to drive the unit cost of the US fighters down, to the benefit of the USA and b) in people employed on the production of these aircraft.

With the latest Gripen, Typhoon, Rafael and SU fighters there are realistic alternatives. Its going to be tough in the US and if the drawbridge is drawn up, its going to be even more difficult.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 30, 2011)

Instead for starting a new thread, I looked this one up....

Now, on the JAS 39 Gripen NG, by just moving the main landing gear, they manage to squeeze another 2 central points (instead for just the single one) and add another metric tonne of fuel. I don't know much, well feck all about aicraft design, but is this good engineering or? 

How much is a metric tonne in fuel?


----------



## davparlr (Feb 8, 2011)

I'm confused by this thread. It appears to me that the Gripen is basically the equivalent to the F-20 and is rather old technology when it come to stealth. If so, why would any country pay money to buy more targets. I would guess a country with Gripens would be assigned second string missions. The F-35 has very good stealth and stealth is costly. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 22, 2012)

*9 July 2012, in News....* 

The Gripen NG test aircraft is now flying with a SELEX Galileo Raven ES-05 AESA radar installed, following extensiv testing with an earlier AESA prototype.

Raven ES-05 is a high performance Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) fire control radar designed for the Saab Gripen NG multi role fighter that builds on over 60 years of SELEX Galileo’s fire control radar experience. It has been designed in close collaboration with Saab and is a vital part of the Gripen next generation multi functional sensor system.

The sensor suite includes active and passive sensors, integrated for central sensor command and sensor fusion. This will significantly increase the multirole capability and sensor performance against future threats and more complex scenarios.

The Raven ES-05 AESA radar features an innovative roll-repositionable AESA antenna to provide a full ±100º field of regard that improves the capability for maximum situational awareness and platform survivability. This allows the pilot to maintain the missile datalink and turn away whilst the scenario continues and the ES-05 aquires other targets and tasks.

The highly reliable AESA transmit-receive module technology incorporated in Raven ES-05 significantly improves system availability leading to reduced lifecycle costs. SELEX Galileo AESA Radars delivering greater performance and higher reliability than comparable mechanically scanned radars and offers all the advantages of multi-function AESA arrays with significant through life cost savings.

The Raven ES-05 Radar has been designed from the outset to meet worldwide fire control radar detection and target tracking needs combined into one efficient modular system. It builds on common modular units for a scaleable system architecture to meet the needs of fire control and intercept radar operational requirements whilst remaining resistant to radar countermeasures. 

The AESA antenna is coupled to fully digital multi-channel exciter/receiver and processor Line Replaceable Units (LRUs). These provide a comprehensive mode suite which includes air-to-air, air-to-surface, interleaved and support functions which can be readily adapted or extended in software to meet future needs.

The radar makes use of AESA alert-confirm techniques to confirm targets on first detection. This combined with optimised AESA waveforms results in increased track initiation ranges, whilst simultaneously maintaining situational awareness. The instantaneous scanning ability of the AESA also provides a comprehensive suite of interleaved air and surface modes, thus providing the pilot with all round situational awareness.

At the core of the AESA radar design is the ability to tolerate individual item failure. Component failures in the array result in graceful performance degradation rather than complete system failure, delivering high operational availability when compared with conventional radar systems. Significant cost benefits over the life of the system are realised due to the high reliability, increased availability and reduced maintenance requirements.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 6, 2014)

_SAAB SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETES TEST WITH IRST FOR GRIPEN E...


Defence and security company Saab has successfully performed the first flight with the new sensor IRST (Infra Red Search and Track) which will feature in Gripen E, according to schedule. The IRST does not emit a signal and can, without revealing the aircraft’s own position, silently detect, track and identify all types of targets.

“The first flight in the Gripen E test aircraft with IRST has been performed with very good results. Multiple targets were detected, tracked and identified and the system works perfectly as expected. IRST is a new sensor on Gripen, which allows pilots to see great distances in several directions,” says Saab’s Wing Commander Flying Hans Einerth.

The purpose of the test flight was to verify IRST functions and the integration onto the Gripen E aircraft. The integration and development work is progressing according to schedule.

IRST is a new sensor and located in the front of the aircraft. It does not emit a signal and can, without revealing the aircraft’s own position, silently detect, track and identify all types of targets and is very useful against aerial targets with low radar cross section, such as stealth aircraft. The sensor is looking forward in a wide sector registering heat emissions from other aircraft, helicopters and from objects on the ground and sea surface.

Gripen E has significant performance improvements compared to previous versions, including a stronger engine, longer range, more weapons, new electronic radar and more advanced avionics. Today, Gripen is the backbone of five nations' air defences: Sweden, South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand. In addition, The Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS) in the UK uses Gripen in its training programme for future test pilots._


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 28, 2014)

The Planet?s Best Stealth Fighter Isn?t Made in America - The Daily Beast


----------



## Lucky13 (May 3, 2014)

Found this....
*Boeing And Saab To Propose Gripen For T-X*
Bill Sweetman
(LONDON) Sep 11, 2013

_Boeing and Saab will announce “in weeks rather than months” that they will team up to offer the JAS 39 Gripen for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X future trainer requirement, according to sources familiar with the deal. Saab is apparently confident that the two companies will be able to undercut the cost of the closest rival contender, the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50.

Other details of the deal are being closely held. The T-X program, aimed at acquiring some 350 trainers to replace the Northrop Grumman T-38, has been on hold due to budget cuts but is expected to restart in the 2015 budget.

The move is a major change to the line-up for the competition, for which Northrop Grumman has teamed with BAE Systems, offering the Hawk, and Alenia has joined forces with General Dynamics to promote the M-346.

Until now, Boeing had stated its intention to offer an all-new aircraft. However, a link with Saab became a possibility when the Swedish government launched development of the new JAS 39E version at the beginning of this year. Although the Swedish plan is formally contingent on Switzerland confirming its order for the fighter (in a referendum that is expected early next year), the Swiss deal has continued to pass milestones on the way to that decision. The JAS 39E is due to enter service in 2018.

Sweden and Switzerland both plan to order only JAS 39E single-seaters, but the two-seat 39F is a straightforward development.

The JAS 39F is fractionally larger and more powerful than the T-50, but also is more modern, with a wide-screen cockpit like that of the F-35 and a fully integrated helmet-mounted display. It is expected to cost less to acquire than the previous C/D variant and has been designed for easy maintenance and low operating costs. Swiss air force leaders say that its cost per flight hour is expected to be half that of the Typhoon and Rafale, its competitor for the Swiss order.

While no formal T-X requirement has been issued, Saab and Boeing’s action indicates that they believe any requirement under which the T-50 qualifies also could be met by the Gripen.

One industry source notes that a T-X Gripen also would be suitable for aggressor training, or as a companion trainer for F-22s and F-35s — which, unlike earlier USAF fighters, are not being acquired in two-seat versions. (The USAF has added T-38s to F-22 units in that role.) Beyond that, a source close to USAF leadership notes that “it is not a long step to an affordable air defense fighter to replace (Air National) Guard F-15/F-16 units.”

Boeing issued a statement that neither confirmed nor denied the existence of the Saab deal.

Update: On Sept. 12, Lennart Sindahl, Saab´s execuctive vice president and head of Saab’s Business Area Aeronautics, sought to clarify the company’s position regarding a potential teaming arrangement with Boeing on the T-X program using a Gripen derivative.

“With the new development of the Gripen E version we expect it to remain in that position for many years to come. But a great fighter aircraft does not necessarily make a good trainer. We remain focused on the continued development of the Gripen E and the fighter will never be a trainer,” Sindahl says. “As we stated previously, Saab always keeps its doors open to new business opportunities and if any of those should be further realized, they would be announced at the appropriate time.”_

It's roughly a year old but....is there any truth behind it?


----------



## Glider (May 3, 2014)

I do like the idea of it being an affordable replacement for the ANG units but it is a big leap to become a standard advanced trainer. Operating costs for fuel alone have strangled the deployment of supersonic trainers in large numbers. I can see it as a lead in trainer for the F22 units, the T38 must be creaking a bit in that role and its handling is a generation or two behind the F22


----------



## nuuumannn (May 6, 2014)

> Am I missing something here?



Pretty much, Dave. Operators of the Gripen are not likely to come up against aircraft with the capabilities of the F-22 or F-35. It's not what your allies are flying that you need to worry about.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2014)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVSNA4k57x8_


----------



## nuuumannn (May 6, 2014)

Very interesting, Lucky and from the Financial Times, too. That alone provides a credible and concise answer to the Gripen's critics. Not all nations have the defence budget of the USA and China.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (May 17, 2014)

Interesting video.....


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKlQyPOiRuE_


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 17, 2014)

I for one would be ok with this. It's having a trainer with a true fighter capability.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 17, 2014)

This isn't the NG bird either....


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3-PeY-heho_


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2014)

Its nice to see SAAB seriously trying to get orders. The Vigen and Draken were probably amongst the best planes that never sold, I know a small number were but I am talking seriously trying.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 25, 2015)

I wonder if they have done up their website....SAAB JAS 39 Gripen


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 28, 2015)

It's just a beautiful plane!


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2015)

She sure is...


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2015)

Not too bad this, increase the radar mode acquisition range with 100% at low altitudes, is that the same as twice the range? 

Upgraded PS-05/A radar gives Gripen C/D extended performance and operating range..


----------



## Lucky13 (May 9, 2015)

A pair of colourful tails...







Photo, Czech Air Force


----------



## Glider (May 10, 2015)

It takes a lot to beat a nice tail

my turn to leave the room


----------



## GregP (Jun 8, 2015)

Wish we had bought them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2015)

GregP said:


> Wish we had bought them.



What for? It's a great aircraft but the F-35 is proving to be twice the aircraft despite the cost.


----------



## razor1uk (Jun 8, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What for? It's a great aircraft but the F-35 is proving to be twice the aircraft despite the cost.



I and others that are on the 35 'fence' might believe you in another 7 years about that, or not, depending on if it ever finishes being tested, evaluated and then accepted for service in its non standard take-off landing versions.

Then again, De'Kerchner or whom ever could do something somewhere and a few 35's in a R&D Combat Squadron could be the only suitable aircraft for the job, so long as turns out after the fact, that such a unlikely event wasn't concocted to be a marketing strategy 'skirmish'.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2015)

razor1uk said:


> I and others that are on the 35 'fence' might believe you in another 7 years about that, or not, depending on if it ever finishes being tested, evaluated and then accepted for service in its non standard take-off landing versions.


Oh, that's going to happen, come hell or high water. The amount of testing is one of the factors driving the cost of the F-35 through the ceiling.


razor1uk said:


> Then again, De'Kerchner or whom ever could do something somewhere and a few 35's in a R&D Combat Squadron could be the only suitable aircraft for the job, so long as turns out after the fact, that such a unlikely event wasn't concocted to be a marketing strategy 'skirmish'.


That's always possible after the bashing the F-35 has taken in the press. You might remember this was done with the F-117 during combat operations in Panama and even though no one ever saw the F-117at that time, it still took a press bashing becasue it didn't hit its target, or so reported.

F-117A: Operation Just Cause (Panama)


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2015)

Saab reveals enhanced radar for Gripen C/D fighter

_As well as enhancing the detection distance, the Mk4 radar will be able to detect and track smaller targets at the same ranges. While at high altitude the in-service Mk3 radar can detect a target with a radar cross-section (RCS) of approximately 0.4 m 2 (the size of a medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft) at a distance of 'X', at the same range the Mk4 system will be able to see a target with an RCS of 0.1 m 2 (the approximate size of an air-to-air missile or 'stealth' aircraft')._

Interesting...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Saab reveals enhanced radar for Gripen C/D fighter
> 
> _As well as enhancing the detection distance, the Mk4 radar will be able to detect and track smaller targets at the same ranges. While at high altitude the in-service Mk3 radar can detect a target with a radar cross-section (RCS) of approximately 0.4 m 2 (the size of a medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft) at a distance of 'X', at the same range the Mk4 system will be able to see a target with an RCS of 0.1 m 2 (the approximate size of an air-to-air missile or 'stealth' aircraft')._
> 
> Interesting...



It is - now if it could "see" the target it needs to be able to lock on, acquire a firing solution and fire its missles prior to the target donig it first, that's the challenge here and we're not even bringing ECMs into the picture as well.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2015)

I'm sure that they're working on that as well....

Now, if I could improve my income by 100-150%

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (Jun 17, 2015)

2nd mishap for that air force..http://theaviationist.com/2015/06/16/hungarian-air-force-jas-39-pilot-eject/


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 23, 2015)

Don't know how trustworthy these are...

Finnish Hornets: “To be replaced by Gripen or Rafale”


----------



## GregP (Sep 24, 2015)

Hey Joe,

In your post several pages back you quote some numbers for the F-22 and F-35 operational parameters. From simple curiosity, what is your source? Not arguing, just want to be able to post those numbers too and know where they come from.

No agenda here ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2015)

GregP said:


> Hey Joe,
> 
> In your post several pages back you quote some numbers for the F-22 and F-35 operational parameters. From simple curiosity, what is your source? Not arguing, just want to be able to post those numbers too and know where they come from.
> 
> No agenda here ...



I went back through my old posts and I believe I gave references to the posts around #34/ 35. Let me know which one you're talking about.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 24, 2015)

Gripens new screen....well, the E/F..







AEL Sistemas Deliver WAD And HUD For Gripen NG

21 Sep 2015in

AEL Sistemas (AEL) has now delivered the first wide area display (WAD) and the head-up display (HUD), which will be integrated in the Gripen NG for Brazil, reports Defesanet.

Saab had announced in February this year that it had selected AEL Sistemas (AEL) as a new supplier for the Gripen NG in Brazil.

The WAD for Brazil’s Gripen NG aircraft is a single intelligent and full-redundant multi-purpose display system, full-colour, large-screen (19 x 8 in) with continuous image presentation and the state-of-the-art touch-screen controls capability. It is the primary source of all flight and mission information in the cockpit. The HUD, on the other hand, provides essential flight and mission information to the pilot when looking ‘heads up’ out of the cockpit. With HUD, the pilot does not need to look down into the cockpit to read instruments which makes it easier to focus on the mission.

"This is a very important step in the development of Gripen NG for Brazil. It shows a very efficient cooperation between AEL and Saab and is a successful step in the industrial cooperation between Brazilian industry and Saab in the Gripen NG program", says Mikael Franzén, Program Director for Gripen Brazil.

To demonstrate and validate the new equipment, an extensive flight test campaign will be conducted in Linköping, Sweden.

Edit: The above screen is for the Brazilian Gripen variant, the screen below is the 'normal' E/F version...


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 24, 2015)

Gripen NG performance, facts and figures It's pdf from SAAB...


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 26, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> Gripen NG performance, facts and figures It's pdf from SAAB...



You don't by any chance drive a SAAB do you?


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 27, 2015)

My old employer!


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 27, 2015)

Lucky13 said:


> My old employer!



Does the Gripen have the ignition (or starter) switch beside the seat like the SAAB cars?


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 28, 2015)

It's more like the old T-word!


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 19, 2016)

Just visited the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen website and saw this....

_On May 18 we are unveiling the first of the next generation Gripen aircraft. It’s a key milestone in the evolution of The Smart Fighter._

I take it that they're about to reveal the first of the E/F Gripens....another prototype _or _a production aircraft, will be interesting nonetheless!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 21, 2016)

I cannot wait!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 21, 2016)

_Sweet_ machine .... will Canada nibble with our F-35 policy flapping untrimmed in our Canadian political _wind_ ..... 

Gripen - the smart fighter


----------



## Lucky13 (May 26, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 27, 2016)

She is the modern day Northrop F-5!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Torch (May 28, 2016)

Was thinking the same thing...


----------



## Marcel (Jun 1, 2016)

Well it is a pretty aircraft, that's for sure.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 6, 2017)

Just posting it, because I like this stealth fighters looks....time will tell, if it'll go from imagination to reality!  
Anyway, as I said....it looks alright!


----------



## Torch (Jan 6, 2017)

Soon to be copied by the Chinese...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 16, 2017)

Gripen completes test flights with 100% biofuel


----------



## Glider (Apr 16, 2017)

vikingBerserker said:


> She is the modern day Northrop F-5!


If SAAB get a tenth of the sales of the F5 they wouldn't complain

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 16, 2017)

Glider said:


> If SAAB get a tenth of the sales of the F5 they wouldn't complain



F-5A/B/C: 847
F-5E/F: 1,399

One does hope for more than 226....

Then again, if we add the Canadian CF-5 and Dutch NF-5 plus the T-38 to table....

CF-5 (NF-5): 240
T-38: 1,146

Then we get 360+....I'm sure that they wouldn't complain about that! 

Here's to hoping anyway, for _even_ better figures!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 17, 2017)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Jun 17, 2017)




----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 12, 2017)

A Gripen Aggressor?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 12, 2017)

Nice!


----------



## Old Wizard (Sep 12, 2017)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 14, 2017)




----------



## Old Wizard (Sep 14, 2017)




----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 19, 2018)




----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 22, 2018)




----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 27, 2018)




----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 4, 2020)

Not a too bad video....

Gripen E | Ready for the future | Saab


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 4, 2020)

I wonder how they're getting on with this one....🤨🤔

Gripen Maritime | The future of naval air power | Saab


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 15, 2020)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jan 17, 2020)

Lucky13 said:


> I wonder how they're getting on with this one....🤨🤔
> 
> Gripen Maritime | The future of naval air power | Saab


If Canada doesn't buy the F-35, the Grippen a contender?


----------



## Lucky13 (May 9, 2020)

Saab’s New Fighter Radar in the Air


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 2, 2020)

Watch A JAS-39 Gripen Fighter Fire A New Ground Attack Version Of The Sidewinder Missile

🤨🤔


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 2, 2020)

The ole 'Winder just keeps on keepin' on! Which member of the class of '54 will be "last man standing", the 'Winder or the BUFF?


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 8, 2020)

Did India Miss A Trick By Rejecting ‘Stealth Killer’ Saab Gripen For Rafale & Sukhoi Jets? 🤨🤔

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 8, 2020)

Yes they did!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 8, 2020)

vikingBerserker said:


> Yes they did!


At first glance, Gripen seems to have a testosterone deficiency. A 17th century fencing sabre instead of a samurai sword. Either one will kill you just as dead. While the samurai takes his roundhouse swing, your sabre pokes right up under his sternum.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 8, 2020)

See how well they do, when things get hot....again, between India and China! 😉


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 8, 2020)

Lucky13 said:


> Did India Miss A Trick By Rejecting ‘Stealth Killer’ Saab Gripen For Rafale & Sukhoi Jets? 🤨🤔


I enjoyed the link but I’m curious about the article saying Sukhoi jets achieved a legendary status in out-maneuvering U.S. jets. Is this true? Is it sensationalism? Somewhere in between?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I enjoyed the link but I’m curious about the article saying Sukhoi jets achieved a legendary status in out-maneuvering U.S. jets. Is this true? Is it sensationalism? Somewhere in between?


Unproven sensationalism. Because they do the "cobra." Every time these armchairs hype Russian designs, they usually wind up as smoking holes or sitting idle in a dessert picked apart and covered with graffiti.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 8, 2020)

Thanks. 
I have to say, sitting in a desert covered with graffiti seems like a strange tactic to me. Are NATO tactics evolving to counter this threat?


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 8, 2020)

....and the SAAB 35 Draken did the "Cobra" decades ago! 😉

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2020)

Lucky13 said:


> ....and the SAAB 35 Draken did the "Cobra" decades ago! 😉



Yep! But thank god it was never attempted by one in combat! Then again I think the Draken drivers were smarter than that!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Thanks.
> I have to say, sitting in a desert covered with graffiti seems like a strange tactic to me. Are NATO tactics evolving to counter this threat?



Yea - contracting scrap metal collectors!


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 8, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep! But thank god it was never attempted by one in combat! Then again I think the Draken drivers were smarter than that!



Well, some of them were! 😉

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Aug 9, 2020)

Do not want to be in that kayak... Damned Vikings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 1, 2020)

See how long it'll be, before we have missiles kicking about that'll see all them there stealth fighters and bombers....🤨🤔


----------

