Brazil chooses Gripen

[JediMaster 451]

F-20 never was better than an F-16A, it had a tiny radar and limited weapons ability.

 

Now if the argument is F-16 vs Gripen, it all boils down to "which models?" The NG isn't yet around, so it's hard to definitively state how good it is. The latest F-16 blk 60 (I don't want to call them E/F because to me those will always be the delta-winged prototypes) is a known quantity, but it's still an older airframe. The Gripen has a "modern" airframe in that it's over 10 years newer, but it's still an 80s design.

 

As for the Mirage deal, countries aren't buying as many planes anymore, so aftermarket support is a business the OEMs have expanded into. No more "we just build them, let the other guy maintain them", they want to be making money for the life of the plane. Foolish of Dassault, though, to overload the deal like that so they just give up on the F1 altogether. They could've gotten something from the Spanish F1s but they wanted more than was available to give.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Difficult to compare the F-20A (never got past a few test versions) to a production (Heavier) block 10 F-16A - but if you use the proposed 18k thrust and 200sqft wing area for the F-20A:

 

* F-16A B10 has much lower Basic wingloading,  comparable / better TW ratio, more fuel and weapons carriage, better visibility and room for growth (The F-20 would be using CFTs from its introduction 1985!)

The F-20 did have some better pit avionics that went into the FA-18A according to a test pilot who also flew F-16As for the USAF

 

 

 

According to SAAB the Gripen E has a worse TW than any F-16 version across weight range and is also lower than Typhoon or Rafale - a wingloading comparison would need a better understanding of the canard configuration.

Internal fuel given as >2.0 metric tonne (4,409 lbs) compared to 7,189 lbs for F-16 (would hope its higher than that)

The Max TOW of Gripen is ~31,000 lbs - gives a weapon / fuel carry range 31k - 16k = 15k compared to (Rafale ) 54k - 23k = 31k (Typhoon) & 50k - 25k  = 25k

 

Good Gripen E points would be:

·         GE engine

·         Selex AESA radar

·         Advanced sensors & fusion

·         Rough/short field operation  

·         Square intakes and good RCS reduction potential

·         cheap to run in comparison

·         Seems to have a bigger nose (than F-16/Rafale) so could house bigger radar dish and other avionics

 

Brazil FAB operates M2000-5 & F-5EM - so yes Gripen E can replace that lot on account of its advanced radar, avionics and tech transfer promise at the very low end of the price scale.

Did someone mention Sea Gripen for Brazil? don't you kinda have to redesign the airframe and gear for that making it  a lot heavier - who would fund that? Maybe they will get Frances old Super Etendards

 

 

 

Can the Gripen be compared to the F-20A vs F-16A?:

·         Potentially lacks range

·         Room for other internal Airframe growth debatable

·         Lacks in store weight carry capability

·         Has good avionics

 

So the Gripen is purely a light weight F-16 concept but lacks the raw performance of its Euro peers it seems.

 

Rafale C sits in the middle for me - not as good raw performance as Typhoon (on paper) - but its a good attempt by a single country and good avionics.

 

Typhoon combines F-16 with F-15/TornadoF.3 concept and has good high alt supersonic performance, good RCS reduction features, 4 x recessed AIM-120 carriage, good internal sensor suite - I would happily place this at the top of the 4++ Gen tree on performance and capability for Western jets.

 

I expect the above will all get AESA radars eventually - probably not a big deal at the moment though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+JonathanRL 974]

There is only one way to settle this!

[+logan4 847]

The  South-American continent is slowly getting closer to a similar unification process and state like the EU. They will not need high end superfighters as the chance to going to war will be way less than it is now or anytime in the past. Also even today they are mostly staying out of any world "policing" action the only fight those birds will most likely to see will be to shot down drug cartel planes.  

Beside that Gripen is a 3 in 1 package from the start. Although would benefit from a more powerful engine.

Comparing it to Rafale/Typoon/F16 is usless, it was designed to be small, but also a capable airplane what it does deliver. No more no less.

The world will advance by cooperation of the countries not by their separation, and if you cooperate with someone you will not go to war with it. Just like in the USA or EU or the Common Wealth states. 

Edited December 28, 2013 by logan4

[MigBuster 2,884]

Comparing it to Rafale/Typoon/F16 is usless,

 

You do realize that it has to compete with those platforms on the world market - and others like the MiG-35 - so every country will be comparing them - in fact Brazil have just done it -  kinda point of the thread

[MigBuster 2,884]

So did I not just say that?

 

 

 

Had to look for myself - didn't think it was lacking as much  

 

 

 

Perhaps Brazil see it more as a better opportunity to develop their own aircraft industry:

 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131224/DEFREG01/312240006/Swedish-Government-Looks-Add-Value-Gripen-E-Sale-Talks

[+logan4 847]

You do realize that it has to compete with those platforms on the world market - and others like the MiG-35 - so every country will be comparing them - in fact Brazil have just done it -  kinda point of the thread

Yes I know, even then my statement still stands, as we "outsiders" to the decision have our biases and narrow glasses which tend to filter things we not want to look at or prefer to emphasize. We have to look at the full picture not just part of the picture. Technical/performance/political/economic/availability/technology transfer, future (current) needs, etc.

If anyone picks just one of them it kind of turns into the who's ** is bigger debate. 

Most of us tend to compare it based on technical stuff or based on what we think they "can" do and forget the other aspects thus it becomes "useless" in general. It has value based on showing the different viewpoints and comparing them, but only if those keep out the biases we have.

[+logan4 847]

I'm fully sorry if you feel that way from my post, since I haven't quoted anything you wrote I see no point in your upset. Beside there is mention of Typoon in post 54 in aspect of comparison.

[+Brain32 265]

In regards to the Gripen I don't see one bit of a bad thing about it, excellent modern electronics including AESA radar, supercruise ability, excellent weaponry choices, modularity and upgradeability, cheap maintenance, cheap aquisition, and great quality.

If you aim for western equipment and are not sitting on trillions of galons of oil it's the very best choice especially for smaller countries.

 

F-16 deals are ok but you can either get a refurbished battered airframe with limited flight hours and still have to pay for upgrade or have to go for what's really too expensive for newer blocks because as new as they are F-16 is from the 1970's let's be realistic...

 

Croatia also got an offer for F-16 and here I'll try to write down about that problem:

 

So the deal was former ANG F-16A's for a dollar each with the obligation to upgrade them to MLU standard which would cost 50mil$ a piece. Actually that does not even sound so bad(thx Yanks btw!) but here are the problems:

1. Yes that's former ANG Vipers which means they were flown to the near limit of airframe life, they will not last long

2. Keeping #1 in mind is 50mil$ a piece for MLU upgrade even advisable for such battered airframes?

3. The 50mil thing is only MLU upgrade, we would also have to invest into pilot education, technician education, equipment, weaponry

4. Using former Soviet aircrafts everything was adjusted for them(mostly mig21) even most of the runways would have to be upgraded and rebuilt atleast in part to support the Vipers

 

All that for airframes that have very limited flight hours left? As generous as initial offer is, the secondary cost would make the whole thing very economically questionable.

 

5. This is very important for small countries - we have very few airfields that would be the first strike in any kind of potential conflict, so even if we prepare and protect our Vipers, where would they operate from? Can they do it from improvised runways or even roads? Can they be properly serviced and maintained in such conditions with limited manpower and equipment?

 

The above conditions are VERY important for most countries really, very few countries in the world have total country surface area and/or shape that would bring territory depth in the strategic equation, for example USA besides being super-huge country also has huge oceans on all sides of potential hypothetic threats, Russia is huge, China, India, Canada, Brazil*

 

* And here we come to Brazil it's hard to say what are they trying to accomplish and how much money can they put in it but still I don't see Gripen as being a miss for anybody that thing sure has some comparative advantages to competition, the question is only if those advantages can please the needs...in that context it's really hard for me to approve or disapprove Brazils decision.

 

Basically my comments are related to the situation on the market of military planes and here I think the Gripen hit's the proper segment. I mean you can look at it from the similar position as you would on automobile market, you can't offer Golden Rolls Royces to mid class 4-member European familiy, as great as Rolls is chances are only the Sheiks will buy it, while the mid-class eurofamiliy will go for the new GolfMk7, relatively cheap, quite advanced and sophisticated from the engineering standpoint, economical and does the job they need to be done.

 

So for other contesters on the military aeronautics market my message is, either lower your prices or start making "Golfs"...

 

[MigBuster 2,884]

Yes I know, even then my statement still stands, as we "outsiders" to the decision have our biases and narrow glasses which tend to filter things we not want to look at or prefer to emphasize. We have to look at the full picture not just part of the picture. Technical/performance/political/economic/availability/technology transfer, future (current) needs, etc.

If anyone picks just one of them it kind of turns into the who's ** is bigger debate. 

Most of us tend to compare it based on technical stuff or based on what we think they "can" do and forget the other aspects thus it becomes "useless" in general. It has value based on showing the different viewpoints and comparing them, but only if those keep out the biases we have.

 

Well regardless of bias you cant consider everything because no one has information regarding the big picture on political/economic/availabilty/tech transfer and future needs - so you can only speculate anyway.

 

However based on manufacturers figures we can get a very good picture on relative performance and capability between airframes competing in the 4+Gen market.

[MigBuster 2,884]

In regards to the Gripen I don't see one bit of a bad thing about it, excellent modern electronics including AESA radar, supercruise ability, excellent weaponry choices, modularity and upgradeability, cheap maintenance, cheap aquisition, and great quality.

If you aim for western equipment and are not sitting on trillions of galons of oil it's the very best choice especially for smaller countries.

 

F-16 deals are ok but you can either get a refurbished battered airframe with limited flight hours and still have to pay for upgrade or have to go for what's really too expensive for newer blocks because as new as they are F-16 is from the 1970's let's be realistic...

 

 

Some valid comments.

 

The state of the airframes is somewhat important - so in that case they would have to access if they meet their needs (whatever they are).

 

On proven technology - No European fighter AESA radars are in service yet (AFAIK) and even the US ones are not problem free - so no guarantee on that one. look at BAE Systems - upgrading South Koreas KF-16 fleet using Raytheon AESA radars - and they are bidding to do a similar thing with Taiwan.

 

On the subject of flying F-16s off roads then Taiwan are a perfect example - any conflict with China means the runways being taken out in hour 1 by a hail of ballistic missiles - the entire air force would have to disperse to other roads - there are vids on you tube of F-16A B20s practicing this.

 

You could of course argue that Gripen would be a better option (in light of political ties blah).

 

With new build F-16s it seems on paper you get comparable airframe performance but with superior range and proven avionics to the Gripen E - you might also pay for some US support - for example if you ever have to use them who gets the SigInt and upgrades ECM suites etc.

Edited December 28, 2013 by MigBuster

[Boresight 51]

France phasing out M2K as quick as they build Rafales. So why keep making an obsolete aircraft.

 

Look at an F-20 and look at the Gripen.......

 

Hello again,

 

Besides the single engine and the double air intakes, I can't find much more external similarities.

 

In terms of avionics (all the internal hardware, radar, etc.), I believe it makes no sense in comparing the 2 of them, as the F-20 is an abandoned concept with some time alreday.

 

Why does the Chile F-16 block 50 dominates the South America versus the Saab Gripen? Just because of it's radar and some BVR capabilities edge?

Edited December 28, 2013 by Boresight

[MigBuster 2,884]

On F-20 look at post #54 - not putting that again - more of a relationship to how it was V the F-16A compared to how it looks Vs the Gripen

 

point 2 - again already discussed throughout the thread (proven technology) - also see last paragraph in post #65 above

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Yes. Because of it's radar and BVR advantage. Also because it works. As I said before, brochures are nice. Would you rather buy something you can only read about in a brochure, or would you rather buy something you read about in the news every day pounding the crap out of people worldwide? When your enemy hears the words, F-16, or Rafale, or Hornet, they take notice. When most people hear Gripen they are like, WTF is that.......Name recognition and branding does matter.

 

I love Sweden. ABBA, the Dragon Tattoo Girl, IKEA, you name it. I just have had some bad first hand experience dealing with Swedish made training devices and weapons.

 

TWGSS (Tank Weapon Gunnery Simulation System) made by Saab, never worked right. I spent almost eight years trying to get that thing to do what the brochure said it was supposed to do. All it ended up doing was break LRUs and waste time and money. The U.S. Army spent a lot of money on that thing and it turned out to be crap.

 

In Iraq, we had a  dud rate of one out of every three fired for Swedish made AT-4s. Not acceptable. So based off of that, I personally am skeptical of any exported Swedish weapon system or complex training device. Others may have a different opinion.

 

The Gripen and F-20 comparison is based not just on looks. They both where designed as cheap disposable fighters. Marketed for people who cannot afford F-16s. So the Gripen takes over conceptually from where the F-20 left off. They also look alike.

 

When upgraded, those National Guard F-16s will have several thousand hours left on their airframe. Can you do that with a Gripen? What is the long term plan for the Gripen? Saab going to do a structural upgrade on them in 15 years? They did screw Denal in their maintenance support contract did they not? Will Saab even exist in 15 years? With all the trouble in that company right now, I doubt it.

 

We have all brought up valid points. But at the end of the day, I wish the sale to be a success and for everyone involved to get what they want out of the deal. Thing is, I would be the guy who would object to it if I was in the Brazilian Ministry of Defense (or whatever they call it). Don't settle for the Golf when you could have a Jetta or a Passat. I have a Jetta, I love it! Ha!

Edited December 29, 2013 by CrazyhorseB34

[soldado 2]

An interesting fact, copy this from F-16.net.

 

Sweden has been participating more and more in international excersises, flying with/against U.S, Norweigan and Finnish airforces. The outcome has proven that the Gripen far exceeds the capabilites of earlier generation fighters such as the F-16A/B/C/D and F/A-18C/D. There has been WVR dogfights aswell as BVR engagements. I’ve had the great opportunity to meet and talk to several Gripen pilots during the summer and all of them say the same thing(although not in the excact same words). In WVR combat against F-16′s the Gripen showed to have no problem in position itself on the tail of the F-16, and the F-16 could not match the superb manouverability of the Gripen, offered by its unstable delta/canard configuration. The Gripen cannot match the T/W ratio of the U.S fightes but the Gripens more modern aerodynamic design allows it to pull tighter turns witout losing momentum. In the words of one of the Gripen pilots: “If the F-16 and Gripen would both excecute a 9G turn, the F-16 would lose alot more airspeed in that turn than the Gripen”. In BVR there was no contest at all.
In excersises with Finnish F/A-18′s the Gripen won ALL of the WVR and BVR fights. The TIDLS proved to be a superior tool in the BVR fights. The F/A-18′s were hit with multiple simulated AMRAAM shots, before they even knew that the Gripen fighters were present. The Gripen pilots said in WVR dogfights the F/A-18 became easier to take out the lower they went, and at 2000m, there was simply no contest.

Edited December 29, 2013 by soldado

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

Flown by Swedes. With massive corporate tech support. Wonder if the same thing can be said of South Africans.......

[+JonathanRL 974]

They both where designed as cheap disposable fighters

 

The Gripen was designed to be easy to maintain and efficient at the same time. The reason is because the Soviet Union was barely an hours flight time from most of our major bases. This is the core of Swedish Air Defence strategy - we are going to lose our airfields at once. As such, we got hundreds of "war bases", some nothing more then a pre-planned stretch of road. It was meant to be able to operate under Guerilla conditions if need be and is part of the reason the maintenance takes short time and is easy to do. You have to remember that the Gripen was designed to fight in a war where it would be outnumbered by the best the Soviets had to offer.

 

This is the design philosophy behind it. It was not "meant for people who cannot afford the F-16", unlike the F-20 who you keep erroneously comparing it to - and none of those arguments fly, so would you please stop doing that? - , it was never designed for export. It was meant for our purposes. It was meant to design our freedom and in all probability NATOs Scandinavian Front.

Edited December 29, 2013 by JonathanRL

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

If it was not designed for export, then stop exporting it.

 

The best the "Soviets had to offer" would not have been used against Sweden. The real war would have been fought over West Germany against real fighters like F-15s. Sheesh................

[+JonathanRL 974]

 

If it was not designed for export, then stop exporting it.

You do know this could be applied to pretty much anything developed for own needs and decided to sell? We could make a very long list.

 

And no, not necessarily. The scenario most feared by Swedish military planners in the 1980s was the scenario where Finland and Sweden would be attacked to expand the Soviet sphere of influence and to prevent refugees escaping from the Baltic Countries. It was expected that the treat of Soviet nukes would keep NATO from interfering (settling to shore up Norway and Denmark). A scenario with world war three in Europe would - as you say - see most of the more advanced stuff used there but by no means is this a certainty as both sides expected nukes to be deployed almost instantaneously.

 

Now, I have no desire to keep this debate up forever, so you will get the last word.

Edited December 29, 2013 by JonathanRL

[+Brain32 265]

Also because it works. As I said before, brochures are nice. 

 

Yeah the F-22 and F-35 brochures are really cool too...Rafales also

[Boresight 51]

Thank you MigBuster and CrazyhorseB34,

 

CrazyhorseB34 you did give some insight back there about the Gripen, many things I didn't knew.

However the soldado reports about it's performance at international exercises show's it can be promising.

 

About the aircraft real capabilities and future developments, I will "cut him some slack" though, as if there's a country that doesn't like to throw its money away is - Switzerland.

And they have also chosen the Gripen.

[+JonathanRL 974]

And they have also chosen the Gripen

 

Subject to a referendum on the Subject, I might add. But I suspect that one would be held regardless of what choice was made.

[MigBuster 2,884]

An interesting fact, copy this from F-16.net.

 

......

 

Well I wouldn't say it was a fact - there is no supporting evidence or sources to back up this posters lack of understanding. On F-16 net there are some credible posters such as ex pilots (Gums) and ex design engineers (John Will) who relay credible information on things such as aerodynamics etc - thats the main reason I look at this site. 

 

If you go through the 19 pages of that thread the above poster confirms his clueless ignorance on page 12 with this generalization:

 

.. the Gripen has proven to be completely superior in BVR and WVR fights against F-15's, F-16's and F-18's. What's interesting is that the pilots claim the Mirage 2000 to be tougher to beat in WVR than any of the teen's."

 

You will even find other claims that NoAF F-16AMs with wing tanks and an ECM pod fought Swedish Gripens with centerline tanks and it ended 50/50 blah blah - but as you can see without information such as configuration, ROE etc there is nothing you can draw from exercises - so kinda irrelevant really.

Edited December 29, 2013 by MigBuster

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

 

 

If it was not designed for export, then stop exporting it.

 

lol

 

[+Gepard 11,323]

My old professor said always: "You dont need the high potentials, you need the right potentials."

Under this point of view the Gripen is a good choice for all countries with low and medium danger potential.

What is the main task for a fighter pilot in Europe or South America today? Air Policing! Nothing else. For this job the Gripen is perfect.

The time of Cold War is over. We dont live under the permanent danger of war anymore. So we also dont need the high sophisticated planes, which are extremly expensive. We need the right planes for the current state of danger. A "low cost" fighter is enough for the most areas of the world. I dont speak about Japan and South Korea, which have to face the mad NK. There is a certain overkill capacity not bad. But not in South America. To be honest who will attack Brazil or Chile or Peru?

 

The comparision with the automobile market is nice. I like it. If you ask which cars are the best, then the guys will answer Ferrari, Porsche, Rolls or so. And all will have good arguments for their favorite cars.

But if you ask which cars the guys are driving, then you will get completly different answers. Maybe VW Golf, some Peugeots, Chevies, Fords etc pp. No one is driving the favorite cars, because they cant pay for them. They only can dream of them.

The same is with fighter planes. Dream of the high potentials, fly the right potentials.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Gepard