Friday, July 18, 2014

Fighter Jet Fight Club: Typhoon vs. Gripen!


Let me get this right out of the way.  What we are looking at here are two of my favorite aircraft.  I am biased towards both of them.  I have always had a soft spot for delta-wing/canard designs and both fighters look like something I would have doodled in the margins of my elementary school notebook.  Now that I am a mature adult, my admiration has taken a more practical approach.  I have written extensively about both aircraft, both at Bestfighter4Canada's "prequel" site, Gripen4Canada and as a guest contributor to the Ottawa Citizen's Defense Watch.  I still believe that the Gripen NG is the best choice for Canada due to its performance/cost ratio.  I also believe that the Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3 is a great choice based on its performance alone.

For this installment of Clickbait Friday Fighter Jet Fight Club, I will attempt to put my love for these two aircraft aside in order to declare one of them superior.  Imagine Sophie's Choice, but with a cage match.  (Sorry.)

Remember the rules to Fighter Jet Fight Club:  Everything works as advertised for the year 2020 and costs do not matter.  Also remember that these aircraft are being compared to each other and scores from previous installments are not carried over.

Air-to-Ground:

Interdiction/Penetration:  Both aircraft have sophisticated EW/ECM suites and fairly small radar cross sections (RCS).  The both designs emphasize RCS reduction while the Gripen has the extra benefit of being a smaller aircraft.  Getting a true RCS for each aircraft is not likely without high level security clearance, so I said that the Gripen had the advantage here I would only be guessing.  

Since neither aircraft is truly stealth, and RCS increases with external weapon storage, I have to declare this one a draw.  Winner:  Tie

Deep Strike:  Similar ranges are found on both fighters.  Both aircraft also share similar weapon capability with either the Taurus KEPD 350 or Storm Shadow ALCM available.  The Gripen does not carry as much fuel, but it manages to squeeze more miles out of every gallon.

The Typhoon's ace in the hole here is the availability of conformal fuel tanks.  CFTs give the Typhoon a clear advantage by keeping some of the pylons empty for stealthiness, weapon storage, or performance.  They also allow the Typhoon to carry fuel in the CFTs and in drop tanks, greatly increasing its range.  Winner:  Typhoon 

Payload:  One of the Gripen biggest improvements with the "NG" variants is an increased payload capacity of 6 tonnes versus older Gripens payload of 5.3 tonnes.  While this is impressive for a small single-engined fighter, it comes up short compared to the larger, twin-engined Typhoon (7.5 tonnes).  

The Typhoon also has the advantage of additional hard points.  This advantage only increases further when you take the Eurofighter's CFTs into consideration.  Winner:  Typhoon

Close-air-support:  With nearly identical weapon selection, this category comes down to aircraft performance.  Which one is better flying low to the ground and slow enough to accurately find its targets?

Much like the Dassault Rafale, the Gripen uses a "close-coupled" canard design to improve lift while flying high AoA (angle of attack) maneuvers.  The Gripen's canards also act as lifting surfaces themselves.  Altogether, this gives the Gripen a slower stall speed and better handling at lower altitudes while the Typhoons smaller canard give it a faster instantaneous turn rate at the limit.  

The real kicker for the Gripen here is its ability to operate from austere conditions.  This not only gives it an advantage for logistics, but for close-air-support it allows the Gripen to be stationed closer to the action, giving it a clear advantage when every minute counts.  Winner:  Gripen

When it first went operational, the Typhoon had barely any ground attack ability to speak of.  The emphasis was placed on air-superiority first, with strike capability to be added later.  The Gripen has always had a more holistic approach to being a multirole fighter, with the "A" in JAS-39 signifying "Attack".  The Typhoon has come a long way however, and its sheer size advantage gives it a better payload ability, while its CFTs give it superior range options.  Air-to-Ground winner:  Eurofighter Typhoon.

Air-to-Air:

First look/First kill:  If both aircraft are considered to have nearly equal RCS, and heat signature, then the aircraft with the better sensors wins this round.  This is not the case however.  The Gripen, when loaded for air-to-air (i.e. without a bunch of bombs and fuel tanks) almost definitely has a smaller RCS than the larger Typhoon.  It certainly has a smaller infrared signature, with the Typhoon propelled by two engines, each roughly equivalent to the Gripen's single.

While the Gripen might be slightly harder to detect, the Typhoon does have its own strength here.  Both aircraft will be equipped with an AESA radar with a novel "repositioner" allowing better coverage than a typical AESA radar.  The Eurofighter's CAPTOR-E stands out by having an additional 50% more T/R (transmit/receive) modules, about 1,500 to the 1,000 T/R modules of the Gripen's Selex Raven ES-05.  Both aircraft have similar IRST sensors.

While the Gripen may have a slightly smaller RCS and significantly smaller IR signature, it likely is not small enough to overcome the Eurofighter's massive radar advantage.  When it comes to "first-look, first kill" the aircraft with the better radar typically has the upper hand.  Advantage:  Typhoon

Beyond visual range:  Seeing a target first does not always guarantee a kill, especially when both aircraft are fitted with sophisticated RWR (radar warning receivers), ECM (electronic countermeasures) and decoys.  Both aircraft are about equal in this regard, equal enough that I am not inclined to declare one having the advantage over the other.

With its new GE414 engine, the Gripen NG closely matches the Typhoon.  Thrust-to-weight ratios are nearly the same, and both aircraft are capable of supercruise while carrying A2A weapons.  Speaking of weapons, both aircraft should be declared equal as well.  They are both capable of handling the MBDA Meteor as well as the AMRAAM with a two-way data link.  

Any beyond visual range match-up between the Gripen and Typhoon is almost certainly to be decided by the skill of the pilots.  Advantage:  Tie

Within Visual Range:  Again, both aircraft are frustratingly similar.  Both utilize IRST combined with HMD, as well as near identical WVR weapon capability including the IRIS-T, ASRAAM, or AIM-9 Sidewinder.  

The only real differences here more mechanical.  The Gripen has an advantage due to its smaller IR signature.  The Typhoon has a slight advantage with its instantaneous turn performance, allowing it to point its nose and weapons quicker.  Both aircraft have the ability to fire HOBS (high-offboresite) missiles, but it is far preferable to fire a missile that is pointing at the enemy at the time.  

Given the similarities, as well as equally good differences, this one is too close to call.  Advantage:  Tie

Dogfight:  Again, both aircraft are near equally matched.  Both aircraft sport the 27mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon, although the Gripen F might have to do without, as two-seat Gripens give up their sidearm to make room for the extra crew member.  The Typhoon carries 30 additional rounds.

The Gripen is a smaller target, however, and does boast of better performance at slower speeds and high angles of attack.  As long as the Gripen is a single-seat model, it will likely have a slight advantage.  Advantage:  Gripen...  As long as its a single-seat model. 

Winner, Air-to-Air:  The Gripen looks and acts like a mini-Typhoon is most regards.  Any advantages one has over the other is more due to differences in size.  Given that the Gripen has only one advantage (Dogfight), and that advantage is conditional, the winner here is the Typhoon.  

Versatility/Logistics:

Versatility:  Specialization is for insects.  Both aircraft are capable "multi-role" fighters, competent at either air-superiority or strike roles.  Two-seat options are available for training or high-workload missions.  As such, they are capable of being a nation's only fighter aircraft.  Neither makes the pretense of needing another aircraft to fill any gaps in its capability.  

The Gripen goes a littler farther than the Typhoon in this regard, however.  It is obvious by its designation if you speak Swedish; JAS-39.  Jakt (Fighter) Attack (Attack) Spanning (Reconnaissance).   The Gripen also has its famous rough field capability, allowing it a forward operating capability superior to just about ever fighter short of a STOVL (and even then...)

The future may hold even more roles for the Gripen.  Saab and Boeing were rumored to use the Gripen as the basis for the T-X T-38 Talon replacement, although this has since been denied.  The Gripen's short airfield performance also makes a "Sea Gripen" variant quite possible.  With Brazil (the Gripen's latest costumer) needing a carrier capable fighter soon, the Sea Gripen is a very strong possibility.  Plans for a navalized Typhoon are shaky at best, especially considering that the UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth is set up strictly for STOVL fighters (like the F-35B) only.  Advantage:  Gripen

Logistics:  The Typhoon is the dominant fighter type of Europe.  Sales outside of Europe have been not forthcoming, however, with Saudi Arabia being Eurofighter's biggest non-European customer.  There have been problems with parts shortages, and the Typhoon is a complicated twin-engined fighter with supply lines originating from all over Europe.  

It is hard to imagine an fighter aircraft with a smaller logistical footprint than the Gripen.  Saab boasts about the fact that the Gripen requires only a handful of technicians to service between flight.  It also boasts that a deployment of ten Gripens can be supported by a single C-130 Hercules with plenty of room to spare.  The Saab wins this one hands down.  Advantage:  Gripen



Final Score:

Air-to-ground:  Typhoon: 3  -  Gripen:  2
Air-to-Air:  Typhoon: 3  -  Gripen:  3 (This score is 4-2 against the Gripen F)
Versatility/Logistics:  Typhoon: 0  -  Gripen 2

Final Score:  Typhoon: 6  -  Gripen:  7  (Or 7 - 6 if you compare two-seat versions)

Bigger is not always better.  What the Gripen gives up in payload it makes up for in versatility.  Despite being smaller than the Typhoon, it packs similar weapons and equipment.  Besides payload, the only real compromises made by the Gripen are radar size and the two-seater's cannon.  Not a bad deal, in the grand scheme of things.

For air-to-air or air-to-ground, the Typhoon is likely the better fighter.  But is it worth the extra cost?  The Gripen is slightly more versatile and easy to support.  Quite simply, it up for anything.

Costs do not matter in FJFC, but the Gripen is clearly the more economical choice.  Not only is the Gripen cheaper than the Typhoon to procure, but the operating costs are a mere fraction of the Eurofighter's.  Much like comparing a Porsche Boxster to a Mazda Miata, nobody will deny that the Porsche is the better car...  But is it worth the extra cost?  The Porsche owner likely has a second car for the winter and for mundane tasks like buying groceries.  The Miata owner probably gets by with a set of winter tires and making additional trips to the store when needed.

Is the Gripen the Miata of fighter jets?  The VW GTI?  (I wish I could say Saab 900 Turbo...  But that was a long time ago.)    Let me see your comments.  Just please remember to try and keep on topic.  This is about the Typhoon and the Gripen, not the Super Hornet, Rafale, F-35, or F-15SE.  We will get back to those again soon, honest.



64 comments:

  1. Good comparison and I think you came to a fair conclusion although you left out the strongest card of any Swedish fighter - its fighter link.


    The Typhoon have a little bit better specs at a far greater cost. The Typhoon and Rafale are hotter planes than the Gripen.


    but


    Again, the idea with the Gripen; make a competitive fighter, something 'good enough' at affordable cost. You could afford to send 3 or 4 Gripens or 1 Typhoon at similar operational cost.


    3 Gripen vs 1 Typhoon is one-sided. Quantity is its own quality.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thousands of hours above Arctic circle. Designed by people used to snow, ice and cold temperatures.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6rJHE0ONIc&list=UU9013JWZWntBD6Zy9mVJQpA



    Pardon the Swedish but some good footage if you watch through.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great job again.
    My concern is parts. North America has been nicely independent from world conflict other then the war of 1812. Europe has been over run a few times and conflict happen. Buying a European fight somewhat concerns me, but specially a fighter that is built in many countries. The Eurofighter has a wing built here and a tail built there. I think issues between nations is less likely with NATO and the EU, but old bloodline run true. Both are great aircraft.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Typhoon is an amazing fighter. And has a
    bigger payload, if you foresee doing a lot of truck bombing. But the three for
    one viewpoint makes a lot of sense to me.

    For example this Meteor is going to create a
    situation where there are haves and have nots in this world. All the fighters
    that can deploy it with more or less the same competency, are going to be
    superior to those that have it not. So three planes up there instead of one armed
    with the Meteor system, that kind of geometry and economics appeals.







    Luckily for us Gripen fans, we know the first and
    foremost tenet of our thrifty DND is always to do more with less, so we can sleep peacefully knowing they are going to make the right choice

    ReplyDelete
  5. They really need to dress up the look of this aircraft. The intakes drive me nuts. She looks good in the air and the two seater looks better than the single.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is a great blog..very entertaining read. I share your concern with the F35 for the obvious reasons and one that isn't discussed nearly enough:
    65 simply isn't enough given the size of our country, attrition, and the servicability of a highly complex fighter. We really need to be looking at about double that number of aircraft.
    Another thing that isn'd discussed enough is the ecconomic spinoffs. One of the reasons that the meteor was developed is that relying on the US for missles allows the US to use export restrictions to skew export sales to their own manufacturers and to the the detriment of aircraft like the Typhoon. Also, unless we want to go with Sukoi, we're approaching an era where the only choice will be US designs or a pan-European consortium. If Canada were to select the Gripen or the Raphale, then we would be contributing to future diversity in selection and more importantly, would have the potential to be an integral part of the design/modification and future sales. We've lost our indigeous fighter aircraft industry thanks to political vandalism but we could perhaps salvage a meaningful part of it through shared production/development with Saab or Dassault.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great article. Factual and fair.

    I know you say cost and factors like that will not apply to this specific 'fight'. But C'mon.
    With 1 EF vs 1 Gripen, the EF might take it performance-wise, just like in the article.
    But when you've got 2 Gripen for every EF, with lower costs, and more jobs/development/own design/partnership with Saab & SWAF/etc - Is there anything that could beat that?
    If costs were no issue a whole new fighter could be developed.

    Both are very capable systems though.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul, a good question on the parts issue however the industry is so incestuous its hard to determine who relies on who. Even the F35 relies on magnets from China. If Canada does manufacture equipment for these planes chances are they are supplied by other nations to do so. Probably the US and China. I do know both rolls royce and GE have plants in Canada although not sure how much manufacturing they can perform on these engines. They maybe strictly maintenance although that could change through negotiations.
    Still, I like the Gripen in spite of missing another engine as it seems to fit so nicely into our operational requirements. The versatility and SAABS ability to modify/adapt the aircraft quickly is what impresses me. Also, the Gripen seems to have a stronger development future than the Eurofighter which is a strong selling point for Canada. And if they establish a tie with Boeing we may even get to buy them as we rarely stray away from US aircraft. I.E. Mulroney buys Italian helicopters and we spend .5billion to cancel and buy US copters.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the plan would be to do something like India did with the MMRCA. Buy a few planes from the original assembly line while you set up your own production plant, then build the rest yourself. Once you have your own production line, you don't need to depend on anyone else for parts.


    Problem with this approach is that you're not buying just the planes, you're also buying a factory and the formation of its employees, so it drives the overall costs up quite a bit. India's MMRCA deal ended up doubling compared to what it would have cost them without full transfer of technology. But if you care about sovereignty, replacement parts, and the boost in your aeronautic industry's knowledge base, then it's worth the price.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Can you imagine Boeing/Macdonald Douglas and SAAB designer, Wow!
    We should have bought more of the same helicopter, now we have double the parts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Canada lacks pilots and is grabbing some of the British Pilots that where just sacked due to budget issues.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not really on the subject of Typhoon vs Gripen, but I just found out this video of the Rafale taht i'd like to share with you. You should like it, no matter which aircraft you prefer. There's some really impressive maneuvers starting about 2:30. There's no doubt the Rafale is amongst the most maneuverable fighters out there. Its rolls are incredibly sharp.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGw07om3bEE

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nice thanks

    This brings up a question, why are these aircraft not being displayed to the people of Canada at air shows? Take it to the people, not the government.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You know, there is something about airplanes that touch the soul. I see this video, awesome plane, the geography makes me think of us, the guy changing the tire... could have been a Canadian Tire commercial. Look folks, Fog sent us a link to Janes that calls the other jets (unmentionables according to our worshipness) "marginally" better adding that the Gripen, although a single engine aircraft, shows "no significant" disadvantage, and that during a time of war, its simplicity would become its most enduring quality.

    Funny how politics always creeps back into the equation.

    2 for 1 is great but it is more than that. It's plenty for us. The price is right. Payload, seriously! There will always be bigger and faster. You spend your way to extinction. No secret that I love this little bird. It does not take away from the others, which me promised not to talk about. The Typhoon is fair game! TOO MUCH MONEY for the marginally better performance! Fog, the Gripen is plenty hot.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Shit ...I forgot money is not a factor. Sorry. Love the unmentionable French bird.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ya think! Pisses me off to no end. Anyway, hence the value of simpler, effective, homemade, affordable plane... that can kick some pretty good butt. Seriously, everything is outsourced today. Would have to make strategic decisions. USA, less stressed because they have more weapons than God.

    ReplyDelete
  17. CarlJF, you have been a bad blogger! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. You're kidding. Did you hear that the government has been playing with Wikipedia? They do not like when the people think.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The Russian believe that, or used to! But in this case
    I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You're an architech, fix it, post it!:-)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nice footage even if it is a stripped down configuration I wonder for how long time it can fly like that with the afterburners on. It is a very big IR-target which even is seen with a naked eye.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fantastic video Carl! The current Gripen simply doesn't have the raw power required to manouver quite like that.

    The Gripen E will be similar or better with lighter loads although not as good with bomb loads.

    The Rafale is a great performer. That video is also very well produced. Almost looks like they have used some sort of image stabilization since the subject hangs so still and smooth in the image frame.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's an airshow. You don't need to think about IR during airshows. Airshows have nothing to do with war. It's entertainment where one can enjoy how different shapes "sail" through the air.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In your Close-Air-Support category you state that both aircraft have similar weapons capabilities but I'm not sure that's true. The Typhoon can launch potentially up to 18 Brimstone anti-armour missiles which enables it to hit a large number of different mobile targets in one attack - I don't think the Gripen has this highly effective option. So I would place this category as a tie not a win for Gripen.
    In a BVR contest if the Typhoon is carrying CFTs then it could potentially carry up to 8 Meteor and 4 ASRAAM missiles or even 10 Meteor and 2 ASRAAMs. I don't think the Gripen can carry anywhere near that number and I think this makes this category a clear win for the Typhoon.
    Finally, with versatility. As there is no chance of Canada operating an aircraft carrier what is the relevance of the Sea Gripen. Surely this category should be a tie as well.
    So overall I'd give it as an 7-5 win to the Typhoon.

    ReplyDelete
  25. All our welcome to judge as they see fit. That's the point!


    The Gripen E will have Brimstone compatibility. It will also have 10 hard points with 2 on the wing reserved for WVR missiles on the wingtips. The Typhoon has 13 hard points, 4 of which are reserved for BVR missiles in conformal storage. Both would likely need at least one pylon free for a targeting pod (LITENING). Given that the Brimstone only weighs about 50kg each, weight doesn't really enter the equation. The weapons capability here is close enough to not make the difference. It's the Gripen's low altitude/low speed performance that gives it the advantage here. Not to mention its ability to operate from rough airfields closer to the action.


    While I guess the Typhoon could potentially carry more AMRAAMs or Meteors, it would be hard to realistically imagine a scenario where this becomes a factor. After the first four have been fired, the contest has either been settled or the combatants have merged into WVR. I would be willing to concede that the Typhoon's better radar could make a larger difference here, possibly giving it a win in BVR instead of a tie. This would of course give a total score of 7 - 6 in favor of the Typhoon. Admittedly, this is how I imagined things would ultimately work out. When it comes down to it, I'm just not convinced that the Typhoon would have that clear of an advantage... Hence the tie.


    I mention the Sea Gripen merely to be complete. Even without it, the Gripen is more versatile than the Eurofighter. It is already being used as a trainer (Empire Test Pilot School). Not to belabor a point, but the Gripen's ability to operated from improvised bases and airfields is a HUGE factor here.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The Swedes are right, the death spiral of fighter aircraft needs to be broken. In Canada every new generation of aircraft are purchased at approximately 1/2 the numbers of the previous generation. That is why 65 F35 aircraft... after the F35 they will want 32... then 14... then?? "Quantity has a quality all its own." is a common saying in military circles.

    In my opinion the F35 is more about economics and jobs than anything else. Canadians feel "safe" no matter what aircraft we get. The real question is what do we really need to maintain sovereignty, and meet our commitments to protect Canada and North America?

    For general interests sake I did up a chart showing our history of how we purchase aircraft (sorry not too sure how accurate it is). Info obtained from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/an-overview-of-canadas-fighter-aircraft/article18865296/?from=18063309 and Wikipedia.

    As you can see we have a clear trend of purchasing less and less aircraft over time (aka death spiral). If the trend continues eventually some day... we will have a politician telling us they can protect the entire country with a single super expensive drone.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't care if they build the plane over there, it would probably save money. What Canada needs to provide is pieces, like we are doing for American aircraft , but more.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yes of course it is an airshow but anyhow there is an indication that can be drawn, some cannot supercruise and the maneuvering is done with stripped down aircrafts so it will not happen in the real world. I saw an F-16 doing a solo at the same airshow and there we could really talk about Swan IR-target :)

    Otherwise I think Sweden could try to do some more displaying but that is not in the mentality I assume I like the Viggen STOL-display https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIErhm2y7wY I wondering what had happen if they tried to use the reverser as an vectoring in the air?

    Flying is fun.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I disagree with your statement about air shows. It's good that the planes are flying stripped down because it makes the planes fly better and provides more fun and entertainment.


    Air shows show jets wildly out of context and context is everything. How does something work in reality et c?


    Air shows make for even worse basis for argumentation than carefully scripted Red Flags. Do you really suggest that the Rafale (or any other jet) should have flown without afterburners to make it more "realistic"?


    The Rafale manoeuvres extremely well, with or without afterburners, with or without payload.

    ReplyDelete
  30. But if “fifth-generation” means more than “the ultimate driving machine,” a sixth generation will emerge. Saab can argue that the JAS 39E Gripen, rather than some of the wildly expensive-looking artist's concepts we have seen, is the first such aircraft. Long life requires adaptability, both across missions and through-life. Like Ed Heinemann's A-4 Skyhawk, the Gripen was designed as a small aircraft with a relatively large payload. (Aviation Week)

    From the long-serving Saab-35 Draken (“Dragon,” 1955-2005) to the Mach 2, canard-winged Saab-37 Viggen (“Thunderbolt,” 1971-2005), Swedish fighters have stressed short-field launch from dispersed/improvised air fields, world-class performance, and leading-edge design. This record of consistent project success is nothing short of amazing, especially for a country whose population over this period has ranged from 7-9 million people.

    (Defense Industry Daily)

    “We’re pushing the performance more than we’ve ever done, and pushing the costs down,” says Sindahl, while Ydreskog comments: “We are never satisfied – we are always challenging ourselves.” (Flight Global)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Now you do misunderstand me, the stripped down in this case is, as clearly seen, flying without pylons even if it is dark. For instance I do think that the Swedish Airforce is more into not having special airshow versions rather the opposite, but of course I can be wrong. A cleaner performing aircraft can perform "better". See the IR part irony as there is more to it than radar versus stealth and I do understand that in this special airshow it is more spectacularly to use full afterburner :)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Also to consider, is that if we were to go up against Russia, China, NK , it is my understanding that we (The West) have the best trained pilots because of simulators, training programs and our equipment, that is more reliable (so says that Australian officer testifying on that you tube clip) so I have to assume the Gripen would be plenty for "our" needs but if we are up against the latest Russian birds (which Typhoon might have a slightly better advantage), and get shot at, then we are in a major NORAD/NATO conflict, which means the cavalry is coming.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Are you nuts? The Gripen is easily the prettiest Euro-Canard. The Typhoon is the one with the hideous intakes.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The CSeries parts is built all around the world and put together in Canada even China is involved in the manufacture. So what to do in Canada in a fighter transfer?

    Maybe work to do should look into both HW and SW as the SW work part will not exist if an American design is chosen and there will also be black HW-boxes that you will not be able to look into if an American design is chosen.

    So first put in a requirement about source code and no black HW-boxes and those that cannot deliver will not deliver.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Landing on some road is nice and by the way the Hornet has done the same thing, but unless there is someone there to refuel you what is the point. I guess emergency landings. To re arm the fighter you have to have and ammo dump near by, bring it in by Hurcules( on the same road). Or by truck( if there is a road and if they can get there.)

    ReplyDelete
  36. I can't find any single demo of the Rafale or Gripen with bombs and missiles like the Super Hornet or Euro fighter regularly do.

    youtu.be/q4CX-XTNz2A

    http://youtu.be/Vw85PoAgUsU

    ReplyDelete
  37. Because your airfield has been bombed to smithereens.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Some interesting stuff about Gripen like the EW and the continued development pictures. As the page is in French maybe some Canadians can read it direcly otherwise use Google translate http://psk.blog.24heures.ch/tag/achat+gripen

    ReplyDelete
  39. That's right - a heavy fighter manoeuvres better with load than a light fighter. The Typhoon is impressive because its a medium weight while still beating heavier class airframes like F15C and F18E in manoeuvring.


    Personally I think its a shame that they waste a good air show by making the planes less hot. Still, nothing beats the Rafale in terms of load capability.


    The point I've been trying to get across to Kjell is that air shows demonstrate aspects out out of context and these demonstrations become more or less meaningless. What, exactly, does the videos you linked to show? They show two two airplanes at an air show.
    How do you think the F18E or Rafale operated over Libya during a strike mission? Lots of heavy manoeuvring? No. High altitude to target, drop bombs, go back.


    Thrust vectoring is another of these things very popular on air shows. People on the internet post links to for example the F22 performing some acrobatics, then they go on to a forum to show these air show tricks as some sort of proof for F22 superiority. Few understand that F22 thrust vectoring is there to help fuel economy during super cruise, not dog fight manoeuvres. You want to maintain your energy during a fight, and thrust vectoring, high alpha, and cobra are very high risk things that result in high loss of energy.


    Yet we get people who see these videos go on forums and "omg! look at this video, this plane must be the best" without understanding context.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I didn't see the irony with the IR. Irony is hard to get across in text. Perhaps your entire post was ironic? This didn't come across. If you are ironic I would advice you to state this, otherwise we will have lots of tedious misunderstandings.


    I looks to me as if you had some sour grapes because the Rafale's impressive flying and then you had to make a completely unnecessary negative remark.

    ReplyDelete
  41. That video has nothing to do with air shows or the beautiful Rafale video. Conceptually it has absolutely zero to do with any air show video and I encourage you to think about why. A clue: consider why the different flights where made. What were their purpose? Outcome? Other parameters? et cetera.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yes we have Bombardier and Viking, but are the India's getting a good deal by taking on production? There has to be a cost for a company to give up building an airplane in there plant and giving it to someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Then so has your fuel, ammo, and lunch. It is a good selling point that you can land on a road close to the base if your runway has been destroyed.

    ReplyDelete
  44. A true multirrol can fight other fighters even loaded with bombs as the F-18 demonstrated in Irak, shooting down two e MIGs 21 and completing their bombing mission. If there is no air defences or enemy fighters you can flight straight and high, if not, better to have a maneauverable and capable multirrol even when fully loaded.

    http://youtu.be/XEm75grzVNg

    ReplyDelete
  45. Did Doug not ask us to stay focused on the Gripen and the Eurofighter?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Swedish export authorities refused to offer Gripen E to Denmark.


    Chief of the export authority (Försvarsexportmyndigheten FXM) Ulf Hammarström in a letter to Denmark:
    ”Let me first of all express our gratitude that you have invited the Gripen system as a potential candidate for the next new fighter system in Denmark. I would also like to thank you for a good and open dialogue during the process.

    We have, however, after internal deliberations also including our industry, concluded that we choose not to answer your request for binding information (RBI April 10, 2014).

    I once again thank you for having invited us and wish you a successful conclusion of your acquisition process.”





    http://www.fmn.dk/nyheder/Pages/Forsvarsministeriet-har-modtaget-svar-fra-kampflykandidaterne.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  47. Looks like the Gripen is out in Denmark. Wow, if there was any nation that I thought was a no brainier for the Gripen it was the Danes. Seems like the fix is in, this is sad news.......

    ReplyDelete
  48. Ya, sorry I meant to say they won't be competing against each other for the Danish contract......lol

    ReplyDelete
  49. The Danes and Canada seam to walk hand in hand on some military purchases. Do you have a link to this news?

    ReplyDelete
  50. I just read the article. Does Saab want to sell jets or not? They get there nose out of joint here and now there, good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  51. The Swedish answer was a polite answer to say that they think it is a bogus set up, as the rules is different for LM and the others. For instance LM does not need to create work opportunities in Denmark as the others, so it is a bit strange that the others did not withdraw also.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Mig 21 Performance
    Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1351.48 mph)
    Maximum speed: Mach 2.0
    Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)
    Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)
    Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)
    Armament
    1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon, plus
    2x R-27R1 or R-27T or 4x Vympel R-77

    ReplyDelete
  53. It's important to note that it would not be Saab but the Swedish state that would sell the fighters. FXM and Saab has deemed the Danish competition unfair and biased towards F-35 why Gripen is now not in the Danish "competition".

    ReplyDelete
  54. Much harder to bomb fuel and ammo inside a mountain than an air field out in the open.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The way things are going the Sea Gripen or Rafale will be on the decks of the HMS Elizabeth.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Interdependence leads to peace. But independence builds security. I for one want to encourage domestic production and acquisition of knowhow.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.