>>23188985 Yeah, there's a reason why the plane sucks so hard, you see my dad worked at SAAB when they were designing this aircraft, and the Gripen that we have now isn't what they originally designed. The politicians decided that they wanted an as cheap, and affordable aircraft as possible, so they had to cut down on pretty much everything, just to meet the price tag the politicians wanted. It was originally planned to have two engines for example.
It's ok as a sort of mid-market jet fighter. It isn't as good as a eurofighter, but it's a lot cheaper. It's sort of comparable to the Dassault Rafale.
The upgraded version using the GE 414 will be a considerable improvement. Also, I think they're planning on making the upgraded version carrier capable. This version would get closer to the performance of the FA 18.
>>23189358 It's just that i love military aircarfts, and i read a lot about them, and i've read a lot that Rafale is one of the best aircarfts, not as good as 5th generation of course, but here on /k/ there's too much people hating the Rafale, that's boring
They didn't even come close to winning in South Korea. I don't know if they even seriously tried. It came down to Typhoon, F-35 and F-15SE. F-35 won.
Rafale has a big chance in India, if they ever get the contract signed, but thats it. They have talks with UAE and Qatar, because they are very Franco heavy countries for kit, but it's worldwide ability is hilariously awful because they throw baby out the pram whenever they lose and never seem to realise their problems. Their official release from losing in Brazil was kek worthy, /k/ tier damage control.
We don't hate the Rafale. We hate Dassault for the absolute cockmonsters they are. Rafale is a good plane, but Dassault and Frogfags try to act like it's the second coming better than everything else or something when it's plainly not and costs an unbelievable amount of money. Dassault even dicks over their own country to try and squeeze that plane out, refusing Brimstone because "not French enuf" or forcing AASM to stay exclusive to Rafale only by contract and not letting them export it.
>>23189464 They need to stop wasting my motherfucking tax kronas on that airplane. Sweden doesn't even need it, just kill every single person/sheep on Gotland and stuff every square meter of that shitty island full of SAMs and when it detects Putin flying over just fire everything.
>>23189061 Doesn't actually suck very bad at all, it's a very competent machine. The F-16 is a much larger aircraft, which makes it fairly obvious that it's going to be able to carry more weapons more efficiantly. It's very easy to conclude things based on specs that isn't true, and when looking at fighter jets, you must consider the entire plane rather than parts of it. This makes it very hard to compare different planes unless you have direct access to both of them and make ALOT of testing.
For instance, the radar in the F-16C has a slightly longer range than the PS05 in the Gripen, but since the frontal RCS of the gripen is so small, it will detect a MIG-29 60km before its detected by the counterpart. An F-16 will detect a Mig29 5km before the counterpart does. You also need to practically compare the IRIS-T to the Aim-9x, the datalinks in each aircraft (the datalink of gripen is suberb).
It would be very interesting if hard facts from exercises (like Red Flag) would be available to scrutinize, but sadly they aren't. However, it seems to me that swedish gripens came out on top against norweigan F-16s, though of course this is also hard to deduce.
ITT: cowadoody /k/ids who dont know the gripen was designed specifically to fit a country's specific needs, yet are comparing it to other aircraft with totally different design requirements. applestooranges.jpg
>>23189756 Not that guy, but it actually is. You have to look at tactical capabilities, and what such capabilities are more suitable to a specific country. It's not a question about which plane outperforms the other in BVR XX cases, but rather what plane can do what under different circumstances. The best plane for the US or UK is not the best choice for Brazil or whatever.
>>23189756 exactly, still, every country has different combat requirements. For instance the Gripen was designed to be used on short, makeshift runways, whereas other countries might not need that capability as much, if at all.
Fellow swedenbro here. I live in Luleå, kinda close to the F-21 airbase. Sometimes, pilots fly low over the forest behind my block and i hear the roar of the engine as they gun the afterburner.
I kinds miss the now-dead tradition of "Flying christmas tree" they used to do every December. Last time they did that was in '09 (i think), and that was after five years absence and a quite large public disapproval. But, as all good things in the Swedish armed forces, it was cut yet again due to budget restraints.
>>23189793 The Brazilians wanted the Super Hornet, but we wouldn't give them full production rights. The Swedes gave full production rights (which was fucking foolish), which is by far the biggest reason they won the contract.
>>23190370 The gripen is a better plane than the super hornet. Hell, even the original hornet performs better in A2A than its successor. No reason to pick a super hornet over say, an F-15 unless you really need carrier capability.
>>23191101 Not really. The E is fairly different from the C/D F-15. A Super Hornet is a good do-all type aircraft. It can easily do a2a, a2g, electronic warfare, and even buddy tanker duties with ease.
>>23191306 No. Because that is almost completely dependent on the military using them, not the actual aircraft.
Why would you want us to buy literally the most expensive aircraft on the list that doesn't even have a BVRAAM yet, can't use any of our existing munitions and comes with the problem of an extremely unreliable production line of super expensive parts for maintainence?
It's like you WANT us to fuck our own budget over.
>>23191862 Not really, engines are much more reliable nowadays, engine failures is extremely rare, even nonexistant in modern aircrafts. FADEC really puts in work. I remember reading that the gripen platform has flown 150k flight hours with no engine failures or malfunctions. And even if the engine blows, the hornets and gripens alike are able to limp back home using the AMAD or APU. Having two engines just because of reliability is very redundant and very 1970s.
>>23189227 Except we already know that's a bullshit metric. The CPFH they provide there is inconsistent, they use the total CPFH for the F-35 and only the maintenance+sustaining support for the others. If you apply the same metric to the F-35, it comes out to $13,000/hr. http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/F-35-2013-SAR.pdf#page=94
>>23191995 You're not limping back home on anything if you lose you're one and only engine, especially not in the Gripen. Even the Hawk with a half decent glide ratio, gets about 25 minutes of range from 30K+ after it loses it's engine.
I suspect the modus operandi would be akin to the Typhoon, which is pull the yellow and black.
>>23189256 >>23189283 Well, what I read is that we, the swiss, voted against the Gripen because we either want a better fighter or a proven Gripen. This better fighter might have been the Rafale or something that does not exist yet. The problem with the Gripen was that we evaluated the old versions and not the one we'd buy. The swiss support the idea of having an independent army, why would we let the EU protect us? Or NATO? Look at the Ukraine, Syria, Libya... nobody except you yourself will stand up for your problems.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.