Saab Gripen : News and Discussions

Discussion in 'U.S. & Europe' started by Picard, Jun 1, 2012.

  1. Picard
    Offline

    Picard FULL MEMBER

  2. Picard
    Offline

    Picard FULL MEMBER

  3. BMD
    Offline

    BMD FULL MEMBER

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 11, 2014
    1 person likes this.
  4. Picard
    Offline

    Picard FULL MEMBER

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    - Gripen over Praetoria
  5. Picard
    Offline

    Picard FULL MEMBER

  6. Sancho
    Offline

    Sancho FULL MEMBER

    That's only possible if you have such advanced long range sensors, but fighters don't have RWRs with such long range, more over most of them give only a general bearing not a precise localisation. And when you engage fighters like the Su 35 (as in the Saab video) it gets even worse, since their PESA radars can detect a Gripen at ranges of 300Km or more.
    The Gripen E will get a more advanced EW suit, but still will not be able to have the first detection, be it with active or passive sensors, not to mention that the Su 35 has modern passive sensors too.


    It's not that simple as it seems on paper mate. The more fighters you send, the easier you will be detected. The more fighters you have for the same payload, the more pilots, ground crews and spares are needed to keep them operational. All this increases the operational costs even above of the Rafale. So it's neither and advantage in operational terms, nor one wrt costs and not really an effective solution!

    The rejection in India might have other reasons too, but the evaluation reports from Switzerland and Brazil clearly showed that the twin engine fighters had operational advantages. But as I said, at the end it depends on what requirements a country really has and what they can afford. Since the F16 is getting too old and Rafale or EF are too expensive, the Gripen is a good alternative for smaller countries with lower requirements. But besides of lower performance, the lack of industrial and political power are the biggest problems to make the Gripen a real export success.

    True, METEOR won't have the range to attack AWACS from very long distances, the Gripen would be attacked by escorts before it gets even close enough to launch the missile at the AWACS.
    However, it will be a very effective missile in A2A combats though and to be fair though, we have no real proof if the K100 is really developed and opperational.
  7. Picard
    Offline

    Picard FULL MEMBER

    Detection range of RWR vs radar depends on how advanced both are and how strong radar is; but RWR designed to detect certain type of radar will be able to do so form at least twice the distance - with non-LPI radars, it can be several tens of times longer distance.

    And be detected at maximum line-of-sight range by RWR.

    That depends. Yes, more fighters are harder to hide, but we're not talking about spec ops here. And Gripen's cost is 4 600 USD per flying hour, compared to 16 500 USD for Rafale.

    That's mostly range and reliability in case one engine fails; however, engines did become more reliable.
  8. Picdelamirand-oil
    Offline

    Picdelamirand-oil FULL MEMBER

    Rafale cost per Flying hour is around $ 10000 per flying hour. The cost is maximum when you induce a new plane and decrease with time. 16500 is an old estimate.

    You have to take into accompte that operationnaly you can replace 5 Mirage by 2 Rafale and that the Mirage 2000 can carry more weapon than the Gripen. Also a Rafale can stay on the crisis area more time than a Gripen.
  9. Picard
    Offline

    Picard FULL MEMBER

    Gripen also doesn't require nearly as trained personnell for maintenance as other Western fighters.
  10. G777
    Offline

    G777 FULL MEMBER

    fuel tanks create lift, told to me by a swedish pilot long ago, not a bad idea.
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page