100% agree and in 1/48
JAS 39 Gripen is growing up....
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #162
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
- Thread starter
- #163
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
- Thread starter
- #164
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
What a bunch of crap. Everything they talk about is already done by the F-35, arguably better) and they certainly don't explain how stealth has failed.
More hyperbolic garbage. Don't get me wrong. I like the Gripen - arguably it should be the F-5 of the 21st Century - but these videos come across as fanboy wanking, acting as though no other platform has the capabilities they credit, and fawn over, for the Gripen.
- Thread starter
- #167
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
There are some fanboys out there! 
As good and nice the '39 is, I'm a '35 Draken fanboy!
As for the stealth failing, I think that they explained it with the F-35 using its radar if I heard it right....
As good and nice the '39 is, I'm a '35 Draken fanboy!
As for the stealth failing, I think that they explained it with the F-35 using its radar if I heard it right....
The F-35 radar (be that the original AN/APG-81 or the newer AN/APG-85) is an extremely advanced sensor and one that incorporates low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) measures to avoid detection by passive radar detection. Arguably it is far in advance of the Raven ES-05 being planned for the Gripen E/F, let alone the PS-05/A in earlier versions.There are some fanboys out there!
As good and nice the '39 is, I'm a '35 Draken fanboy!
As for the stealth failing, I think that they explained it with the F-35 using its radar if I heard it right....
- Thread starter
- #169
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
....and still, neither has a kettle in it for coffee or tea!
As I've said umpteen times before, I'm convinced that, as fast technology evolves in aviation, something will show up that will make stealth a thing of the past, something that will no longer make stealth a selling point!
MiTasol
Major
Why is it that the compiler of those videos shows everything in mirror image?
As for my choice - Kenney beat the Japanese in the Pacific largely through his continuous destruction of Japanese airfields which maximised the allies air superiority. Those airfields could be fixed in a few hours with slave labour but the damaged aircraft on it were often permanently out of action. An F-35 airfield can not be fixed in hours and to damage every Gripen runway in an area is impossible. Repairing an F-35 that is shrapnel damaged is not an overnight task using semi skilled labour and duck tape tho the same probably applies to the Gripen. To maintain an F-35 takes a cast of dozens of fully trained experts but for the Gripen just conscripts.
For the cost of building a new airfield to support the F-35 you can buy a squadron of Gripen's and probably have a lot of change left over. and the cost of maintaining an F-35 will always be far higher than maintaining the Gripen.
As for my choice - Kenney beat the Japanese in the Pacific largely through his continuous destruction of Japanese airfields which maximised the allies air superiority. Those airfields could be fixed in a few hours with slave labour but the damaged aircraft on it were often permanently out of action. An F-35 airfield can not be fixed in hours and to damage every Gripen runway in an area is impossible. Repairing an F-35 that is shrapnel damaged is not an overnight task using semi skilled labour and duck tape tho the same probably applies to the Gripen. To maintain an F-35 takes a cast of dozens of fully trained experts but for the Gripen just conscripts.
For the cost of building a new airfield to support the F-35 you can buy a squadron of Gripen's and probably have a lot of change left over. and the cost of maintaining an F-35 will always be far higher than maintaining the Gripen.
Hmmm...let me introduce you to the F-35B. Also, even if you buy into the Saab sales pitch, remember that other aircraft can do what the Gripen does re road runways - see below for example:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KceRPomL04
'
It isn't so unique despite the myth...
Yes, the same would apply to the Gripen and every other platform these days.
Don't take the Saab sales pitch too literally... Plus air forces these days pretty much have multiple well trained technicians so it is essentially a moot point.
Both the Swiss and Finnish authorities, as part of their respective competitions, argued that the F-35 was the best cost/benefit investment, if its full life-cycle economics were taken into account. Moreover, the Finnish Government's report on the HX competition, where Girpen E participated and Lightning II won, states that no bid was significantly less expensive than others in terms of operation and maintenance costs.
- Thread starter
- #172
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
I wonder who'll buy the Gripen next after Colombia getting 16....
MiTasol
Major
Thanks to
GTX I have done a small amount of research into the F-35 (I tend to avoid ugly aircraft) and learned the B model can land vertically which is an item I was not aware of.
As to its maintainability the following BBC article suggests it the F-35 BITE (Built In Test Equipment) is not up to civil airliner standards.
GTX I have done a small amount of research into the F-35 (I tend to avoid ugly aircraft) and learned the B model can land vertically which is an item I was not aware of.As to its maintainability the following BBC article suggests it the F-35 BITE (Built In Test Equipment) is not up to civil airliner standards.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
F-35A equals Air Force
F-35C equals Carrier
F-35B equals Boingy boingy boingy
That's how I remember them.
F-35C equals Carrier
F-35B equals Boingy boingy boingy
That's how I remember them.
- Thread starter
- #176
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
How does the Rolls Royce EJ230 compare to the GE F414G?
It's hard to say because the data on the Eurojet (not RR) EJ230 is very limited. It was offered to the Indians for a development of the HAL Tejas but not taken up. The public data I have seen is that it is basically an uprated EJ200 with thrust vectoring ability. I have seen it mentioned to have maximum wet thrust of approximately 102 kN and Dry thrust is around 72 kN. Comparing to the F414, we get 97.9 kN and 57.8 kN respectively. Thus on just thrust it is roughly comparable. To have a full comparison though, one needs to also know the dimensions, weight and SFC. Using that known for the EJ200 and F414 we get:
| EJ200 | F414 |
|
|
Now if the EJ230 has added thrust vectoring one might reasonably assume that that comes with some additional weight. Similarly, extra thrust usually comes with extra fuel burn. Thus overall, I would say the engines are roughly comparable. That said, it is all theoretical until someone actually does it...and pays for it.
Glider
Major
Thanks for this but I have to say that the difference in dry thrust seems very significant and aircraft spend the vast majority of their time on dry.
- Thread starter
- #180
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Between 100-150 JAS 39 Gripen E/F....this should be interesting!
Ukraine Plans Purchase of 100+ Gripen Fighters
Ukraine Plans Purchase of 100+ Gripen Fighters
