SAAB Gripen : Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
Gripen E 39-9 with Brimstone,RB15,Meteor
Saab Gripen E Walkaround at the Saab factory at Linköping - Guided by test pilot André Brännström
Gripen E (Saab JAS 39E Gripen) "39-10" walkaround at Saab's HX Challenge media day at Satakunta Air Command Air Force Base, Finland.
Gripen E 39-9 with Brimstone,RB15,Meteor
Saab Gripen E Walkaround at the Saab factory at Linköping - Guided by test pilot André Brännström
Gripen E (Saab JAS 39E Gripen) "39-10" walkaround at Saab's HX Challenge media day at Satakunta Air Command Air Force Base, Finland.
We will only buy RAFALES
We will only buy RAFALES
Let's not rub it in for no reason. Gripen E is still our backup plan in case MWF fails spectacularly.
It's the MWF that threatens Gripen, not Rafale.
There is No question of MWF failing
MWF is mainly important for Range , Internal fuel and loiter time which is somewhat lacking in Mk 1A
Othewise MK 1A is itself very good
Once AESA and Elta SPJ ( WB ) are successfully operational in MK 1A we can
Use them in MWF also
Dont waste time in IRST and Internal Jammer and Sensor Fusion
We can always have a MK 2 for MWF
2028 serial production must start so that
We can Start replacing MiG 29 and Mirage 2000
The Mk1/Mk1A is not suitable for most missions. Even performance falls short. In hindsight they should have built a slightly bigger aircraft.
This radar plus Meteor would have given the Gripen E the best A2A capability in the world. Too bad the Swedes did not chase after it.
These three are a problem on Mk1 and Mk1A that will likely never be fixed.
1. Positive G is restricted to 8-8.5 instead of 9 like on other equivalent aircraft. (JF-17 is also 8+).
2. Can't carry 4 missiles with 2 bombs for strike missions or 6 missiles for air defence, along with 2 drop tanks for both roles. (JF-17 faces the same problem. It's even worse considering they haven't made any extra arrangements for LDP pod, ECM pod etc.)
3. Sustained turn rates do not meet ASR specs.
On Mk1, climb rate and acceleration should have issues due to low TWR, but they have kept these a secret. There should be improvements on Mk1A with a less draggy design and possibly significant weight reduction, but we are yet to see if that will really happen.
Mk1 is not supersonic at all altitudes. At low altitude/sea level, it cannot go supersonic. It achieves such speeds only in a dive. Whether Mk1A will see improvement, I don't know. Goes back to the issue of TWR and drag that I mentioned above.
There are also questions about service life, but fatigue tests are still ongoing. Let's see what happens once they reach their goal. I hope to see significant improvements on Mk1A in comparison to Mk1.
There should be other restrictions that we are not privy to. Like turn rates and G performance at different altitudes and different speeds.
THREAD!!
@randomradio ; @hellbent
You may be morbidly interested in what @Sancho has to say & of course advocate. His comments are at the bottom of the thread.
In terms of performance, Gripen C is better. In terms of avionics, Mk1A will be a generation ahead, but then, Gripen C is decades old. Gripen can easily be upgraded with the same avionics as on LCA Mk1A, as long as someone pays for it. Both have the same payload problem. In BVR, Gripen is superior due to Meteor. In WVR also Gripen C is better due to performance, although weapons and HMDS capabilities are pretty much the same.
Gripen C is equivalent to the original LCA Mk2, the version of LCA that is actually "LCA Mk1 done right".
Is the gap between the two aircrafts too wide. I ask for I'd like to know what happens if a Grippen C would go up for a theoretical dog fight against a Mk1a.
No, the gap is not too wide. In WVR, for either aircraft the HMDS + missile combo would be most important. After missiles are used up, it's better for the LCA to run away. A gun fight is bad news for the Mk1A. This tactic can be used by LCA against any fighter jet. The LCA has been specifically designed to throw missiles and run away, just like the Mig-21, so it's all good on that front. In fact that performance gap may not even play any significant part, although the Gripen still retains a slight advantage due to its overall better design. The Gripen is simply a better version of the LCA.
Saab AESA trial offers Gripen C/D users new upgrade path
Saab has begun promoting an active electronically scanned array antenna for its PS-05/A fighter radar, offering an upgrade option for operators of its Gripen C/D, and other legacy types.
www.flightglobal.com
THREAD!!
Unfortunately, for Sancho, much as he'd like to be in what at first glance appears to be an unenviable position as Snehesh Alex Phillips finds himself in, he's just not in the same league. Hope Dassault takes a leaf out of SAAB's book.
