"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

GTX said:

The main benefit I see with the Gripen is the potential that it could be easier to support with limited/rapidly trained technicians.

Click to expand...

The Gripen is a more modern airframe than the F16 with a better performance and should be at least as good electronically as the F16. As you mention it is designed to be easier to maintain than the F16 and was also designed from the start to operate from roads and other temporary surfaces.

However what hasn't been advertised as much, and could be its biggest advantage is the Ukraine have been given the use of some Saab 340 AEW aircraft. There is a data link that exists between the Saab 340 and the Gripen. This will give Ukraine an unmatched advantage in the air war against Russia who don't I believe have this capability.

GTX said:

The main benefit I see with the Gripen is the potential that it could be easier to support with limited/rapidly trained technicians.

Click to expand...

It's also better in rough-field ops, from what I've read.

Glider said:

The Gripen is a more modern airframe than the F16 with a better performance and should be at least as good electronically as the F16. As you mention it is designed to be easier to maintain than the F16 and was also designed from the start to operate from roads and other temporary surfaces.

Click to expand...

The F-16s sent have been through the Mid Life Upgrade (MLU) program so aren't in the same configuration as originally purchased. I also would question if the Gripen is rated as having better kinematic performance than the F-16.

I definetLy agree re the maintain aspect which is why I stated so above.

As for the road operations, both can theoretically do. I do think this is a somewhat overrated feature though and is only practical if one also has the associated support systems in place lest one just end up with a fighter parked on a roadside somewhere.

Speaking of which, if this was a major determiner, I would go further and push for some Harriers to go to Ukraine. Just saying.

Glider said:

Glider said:

However what hasn't been advertised as much, and could be its biggest advantage is the Ukraine have been given the use of some Saab 340 AEW aircraft. There is a data link that exists between the Saab 340 and the Gripen. This will give Ukraine an unmatched advantage in the air war against Russia who don't I believe have this capability.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes the datalink is potentially useful though again I believe the F-16MLUs have Link16 which is a partial equivalent. More importantly though is that with only two 340s, their availability will be at a premium. Useful no doubt but limited.

OverLl, don't get me wrong, I like the Gripen and agree it will be a good choice longer term but as much as I find the F-16 boring, I have to admit that it is probably a smart immediate choice if only because of the broader support system that exists.

Thumpalumpacus said:

It's also better in rough-field ops, from what I've read.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but practically how much is this used?

Several nations have operated F-16s from highways, which can be useful in a temporary FOB or dispersal situation.
Poland, Germany, Israel, Switzerland, Taiwan and others have done this.

True but if that video is correct they take three times the runway length and a bigger and far more trained ground crew.

Typically, an F-16 needs a distance of 1,750 feet to take off and 2,650 feet to land while the Gripen needs 1,640 feet to take off and 1,970 feet to land.

Either one can be done easily on a typical straight stretch of highway that's a mile or so in length (extra distance for safety, of course).

View: https://youtu.be/8g-p6sqeh0w?si=0_7ZCE1knmAFgDz9