F-16.net

Yeah I agree. The F-16 is my fav aircraft but the gripen is a very nice piece of kit. Even more with the upgrades. I would love falcons in my country to be replaced by these one day.

F-16.net Sponsor

Enthusiast Joined: Dec 12, 2006 Posts: 56 Status: Offline

Replace a Viper with an aircraft designed in 1981? I think the Gripen is a fantastic aircraft, but an Air Force already flying F-16's would be making a colossal mistake by "upgrading" to the Gripen. If a country isn't going to go with the F-35, you'd actually be better of going with an upgraded F-16. There are several reasons IMHO. First, the Gripen offers marginal increases in turning ability but falls short in several other areas (total payload, payload diversity, range). The assertion that a better BFM machine is a better fighter is incorrect. Tactics and pilot proficiency make a much greater difference. With the purchase of an F-16, nations are provided with access to fighter training in the U.S. as well as follow on support. The Swedes are fine aviators, but I doubt they can offer the same level of operational support. Countries that already operate F-16s take advantage of a robust logistics program supporting F-16s around the globe. I doubt Gripen logistics is nearly as robust. There just aren't enough Gripens out there to justify a large parts "pool". Furthermore, you already have all a majority of the support equipment and procedures needed for advanced F-16s. This is an often overlooked, but exceedingly important aspect of the buy.

Dollar for dollar, you just can't beat the F-16 in terms of bang for the buck.

Cheers!

You are right in many ways, but consider that the year when studies beggin is NOT the year when it was put to service. After all 1986 was also the year they started thinking in the raptor right?

Now for the operational aspect of the plane, I beleive you are also right about the support, however the Grippen also needs less manpower to maintain it. We dont usualy load up the falcon to the max, in fact the typical loads we have been carrying on falcons can also be taken by the grippen. IF you look at the photos in the galery you see 4 missiles 2 tanks, and often 2 missiles and 2 AG stores. Same as a Gripen would take. For a country like mine it would make sense to buy a cheaper plane to buy and maintain that can beat the F-16 in both BVR and WVR.

BTW the MLU program looks increasingly like a mistake, We simply dont have the manpower to do it under the deadline. We would be better off buying grippens by the time we finish the MLU's. wich is estimated to complete 2015 now.

F35 is more in the class of F-18. Its heavily lobied over here but I doubt we actualy will ever have the manpower to maintain it or pay the premium for the extra fuel it drinks up. Thats not talking about their intitial aquisition price tag!

Enthusiast Joined: Dec 12, 2006 Posts: 56 Status: Offline

You're right if it turns out that Gripen's are actually cheaper to buy AND maintain... but the word on the street is that actual performance has been far less than advertised with respect to maintenance and supportability. Additionally, any claim that the Gripen is superior in BVR engagement is categorically false. People are counting their chickens before they've hatched when it comes to the Meteor and without it the Gripen enjoys no real advantage (and probably no advantage at all over any future AMRAAM development) There seems to be a lot of exaggeration with respect to many of the products and capabilities that are marketed today (I include the F-16 in this). I think many opinions are based on these exaggerations especially since so few Gripens are operated abroad. It would be nice if someone from Czech Rep could weigh in on this. Until this happens, I guess we'll all be wondering

She is one sexy machine... (although a distant second to the curvaceous lines of the Viper)

Cheers!

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 23, 2004 Posts: 23 Status: Offline

viper1234 wrote:

You're right if it turns out that Gripen's are actually cheaper to buy AND maintain... but the word on the street is that actual performance has been far less than advertised with respect to maintenance and supportability. Additionally, any claim that the Gripen is superior in BVR engagement is categorically false.

I'm guessing the word on the street is made up and spread by LM? It's amazing how far they can go to besmirch the competition. For example, in LM's world the Gripen is not NATO compatible, nor does it have IFR capability. Luckily, the countries that flies the Gripen today knew better.

Some Gripen info.

A hot engine change can be made in 45 minutes by a team of three.

10 maintenance hours per flight hour, includes all depot level maintenance.

Twice as reliable as its competitors.

Twice as easy to repair.

Enough ground equipment to support four Gripens can be carried by a single C-130 Hercules.

The Gripen can be refuled and rearmed in less than 10 minutes.

An airborn time of 60 seconds is possible when on high alert with the APU running, all systems fully avaliable 10 seconds after take off. The F-16 needs 3-4 minutes, and its INS and radar will not be fully avaliable.

Gripen mean time between failures(MTBF) is proven to be 7.6 hours. USAF best MTBF is 4.1 hours.

The Gripen costs less than 2000$ per flight hour.

Airframe life is 8000 hours.

On a CAP 385km from base, a Gripen can stay on station for two hours carrying 2X AMRAAM, 2X AIM-9 and 2X droptanks.

When carrying 3X 1000lbs GBU-16 on a LO-LO-LO strike profile, the Gripen has a mission radius of 648km. With 2X GBU-16's and extra fuel tanks radius increases to 833km.

Ferry range is 3500km according to Col Jan Jonsson of the Swedish Air Warfare Center.

The Gripen can accelerate from M 0,5 to M 1,1 in 30 seconds.

The Gripen can sustain M 1,1 using dry thrust, while carrying a droptank and AAM's.

The Gripen can operate from 800m long and 9m wide roadstrips. Take off and landing distances can be down to 400-350 meters

And a few words from the Hungarians, how they experienced the exercise Spring Flag in Italy 2007.

"The Gripens flew as part of the hostile ‘Red Force’, largely conducting beyond visual range air battles with the ‘Blue Force’. Colonel Kilian recalls, “We flew 24 sorties over the two-week exercise, and we launched every day with our two planned Gripen Ds. We were the only participants to have a 100% operational record with the scheduled aircraft.”

“In Hungary we just don’t have large numbers of aircraft to train with, but in Spring Flag we faced COMAO (combined air operations) packages of 20, 25 or 30 aircraft. The training value for us was to work with that many aircraft on our radar – and even with our limited experience we could see that the Gripen radar is fantastic. We would see the others at long ranges, we could discriminate all the individual aircraft even in tight formations and using extended modes. The jamming had almost no effect on us – and that surprised a lot of people.”

“Other aircraft couldn’t see us – not on radar, not visually – and we had no jammers of our own with us. We got one Fox 2 kill on a F-16 who turned in between our two jets but never saw the second guy and it was a perfect shot.”

“Our weapons and tactics were limited by Red Force rules, and in an exercise like this the Red Force is always supposed to die, but even without our AMRAAMs and data links we got eight or 10 kills, including a Typhoon. Often we had no AWACS or radar support of any kind, just our regular onboard sensors – but flying like that, ‘free hunting’, we got three kills in one afternoon. It was a pretty good experience for our first time out.”

Very interesting robban. Makes me wonder why were sticking to MLU upgrades that are going to be as late as 2015.

Enthusiast Joined: Dec 12, 2006 Posts: 56 Status: Offline

A few minor points-

"Word on the street" did not originate from LM, but rather individuals who had received information directly from Gripen pilots... of course that still makes it heresay and I qualified it as such.

"Twice as reliable" and "Twice as easy to repair"

This must come from all those maintainers who have worked both aircraft. Again, exaggerations abound in fighter marketing... you don't believe EVERYTHING SAAB says do you?

"Gripen mean time between failures(MTBF) is proven to be 7.6 hours. USAF best MTBF is 4.1 hours"

Interesting data. I've personally witness an F-16 squadron fly an 8 turn 8 for two weeks without a single code 3 write up. I'd say your MTBF numbers are dubious at best.

Additionally, your operational accounts are complete unremarkable. Two aircraft were able to get only 8-10 kills in two weeks of flying vs. packages of 20+??? Assuming standard regen rules, I'd be embarassed. That's certainly nothing to write home about and does NOTHING to support your claim of the Gripen's superior capability.

I think the Gripen is a fine aircraft... I just think everyone needs to do a serious reality check when reading claims for ALL fighter products out there (F-16 included)

Cheers

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 23, 2004 Posts: 23 Status: Offline

viper1234 wrote:

A few minor points-

"Word on the street" did not originate from LM, but rather individuals who had received information directly from Gripen pilots... of course that still makes it heresay and I qualified it as such.

Well, most of them flew the Viggen prior to flying the Gripen. The Viggen was a more reliable aircraft according to the people I've spoken to, but it's only natural as the Viggen was less advanced and a much more mature aircraft that relied less on computers. The A and B version Gripen are also more reliable compared to the C and D version. Give it some time and they will mature as well. Still they have proven to have a superior operational record when compared to any of the other aircraft systems during exercises, 98-100% being the norm. During Red Flag Alaska the Gripens would have had a 100% operational record had it not been for a faulty Litening pod.

Quote:

This must come from all those maintainers who have worked both aircraft. Again, exaggerations abound in fighter marketing... you don't believe EVERYTHING SAAB says do you?

Certainly not. But I'd rather listen to what SAAB has to say than LM.

Quote:

"Gripen mean time between failures(MTBF) is proven to be 7.6 hours. USAF best MTBF is 4.1 hours"

Interesting data. I've personally witness an F-16 squadron fly an 8 turn 8 for two weeks without a single code 3 write up. I'd say your MTBF numbers are dubious at best.

For two weeks huh? What was their average MTBF after 20000 operative hours?

Quote:

Additionally, your operational accounts are complete unremarkable. Two aircraft were able to get only 8-10 kills in two weeks of flying vs. packages of 20+??? Assuming standard regen rules, I'd be embarassed. That's certainly nothing to write home about and does NOTHING to support your claim of the Gripen's superior capability.

Well, this was their first international exercise, and they have just started flying the Gripen. Perhaps it doesn't prove much. Fun read though.

Quote:

I think the Gripen is a fine aircraft... I just think everyone needs to do a serious reality check when reading claims for ALL fighter products out there (F-16 included)

You're absolutely right. As I'm not a Gripen pilot myself (although I have good contacts), I can not guarantee my information to be correct. But as everyone I have spoken pretty much tells the same story, 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. Cool

Enthusiast Joined: Dec 12, 2006 Posts: 56 Status: Offline

"Certainly not. But I'd rather listen to what SAAB has to say than LM."

Unfounded bias. Have you worked with both companies? Do you have any expertise in this field other than being a fan of fighter aviation? More countries have chosen to work with LM than Saab over the past 10-15 years. Do you really think politics counts for the ENTIRE difference in success. Maybe their decision makers are equipped with more reliable information than you.

" ..two weeks huh? What was their average MTBF after 20000 operative hours?"

You cast doubt over my personal experience and then turn around and use Red Flag (a two week exercise) to fortify you point. How many sorties do you think the Gripens flew at Red Flag? I seriously doubt it was even close to an 8x8. You're right though- two weeks isn't enough time. Come to think of it, neither is 20,000. What will the MTBF of the Gripen be when they have the Gripen equivalent of over 6,000,000 hours (the current Viper total)? The point is that advertised MTBF is highly inaccurate for a low ops tempo airframe like the Gripen. Ratchet it up for 17 years of conflict and see how it does.

".. 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."

I have some ocean front property I'd like to sell you. Wink

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 23, 2004 Posts: 23 Status: Offline

viper1234 wrote:

"Certainly not. But I'd rather listen to what SAAB has to say than LM."

Unfounded bias. Have you worked with both companies? Do you have any expertise in this field other than being a fan of fighter aviation? More countries have chosen to work with LM than Saab over the past 10-15 years. Do you really think politics counts for the ENTIRE difference in success. Maybe their decision makers are equipped with more reliable information than you.

Not really. Just two companies from different countries that differs from each other, alot. A debate for another forum, and a debate I wouldn't want to participate in.

Quote:

You cast doubt over my personal experience and then turn around and use Red Flag (a two week exercise) to fortify you point. How many sorties do you think the Gripens flew at Red Flag? I seriously doubt it was even close to an 8x8. You're right though- two weeks isn't enough time. Come to think of it, neither is 20,000. What will the MTBF of the Gripen be when they have the Gripen equivalent of over 6,000,000 hours (the current Viper total)? The point is that advertised MTBF is highly inaccurate for a low ops tempo airframe like the Gripen. Ratchet it up for 17 years of conflict and see how it does.

Your personal experience? You're just a guy on the internet like me. You do seem to think that I'm full of sh-t though, and that's ok. This is the internet after all. And this site is a place for F-16 worship. Not Worthy

However, during Red Flag Alaska the seven Gripens that participated logged 346 hours during 225 missions, with 99% avaliability. Gripen's will never fly 6,000,000 hours, as there will never be built in as many numbers as the F-16. Current total is some 200 airframes and 100,000 flight hours. Average MTBF for this is 7.6 hours. What's the average MTBF for the F-16?

Quote:

I have some ocean front property I'd like to sell you. Wink

I realise it might be uncomfortable to read such information. But I'm sure you can find and ask some US, Norwegian, or Danish F-16 pilot who's been up against a Gripen. My information comes from pilot's who has fought the F-16(as well as F-15 and F-18 ). Sure, perhaps they have been bull sh-tting me, but that would be some well rehearsed bull sh-t, as they all(from different wings) describe the same outcome.

Enthusiast Joined: Dec 12, 2006 Posts: 56 Status: Offline

From http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... ard-02401/

Nov 16/06: Saab's release discusses the Gripen's performance at Red Flag Alaska. During the 11-day exercise, the 4 aircraft each flew 2 sorties per day, accumulating 340 flight hours (150 'on mission') with a staff of 12 pilots and 35 maintenance technicians.

You almost got the hours right. 4 aircraft x 2 sorties per aircraft per day = 8 sorties per day. That means 88 sorties in 11 days. Day one flying is an orientation/airspace fam flight so that means there most likely only 80 total sorties during actual Red Flag missions. Either way, hours divided by sorties gives an ASD of just less than 2.0 (which is actually pretty good- it would be interesting to know if they tanked pre-mission). The rest of the hours probably stem from the flights to and from Alaska (a really long haul)

I'm curious where the MTBF came from. Can you provide a source OTHER than Saab Gripen promos? I wouldn't be surprised if the Gripen does have a slightly better MTBF.. it is a newer design after all. I wonder what it will be in 10 years though. How would it compare to new Block 50's that doesn't have its MTBF diluted by aging airframes? Points to ponder I think.

200 Airframes accumulated 100,000 hours. My question is how many years did that take? That's only 500 hours per plane. Sounds like an extremely low ops tempo to me.

Again, I don't doubt that the Gripen is a fine aircraft. Categorically superior? I doubt it. You just can trust the advertised numbers. They always seem to have a "downhill and wind at your back, both ways" quality.

Cheers

Newbie Joined: Jan 11, 2008 Posts: 7 Status: Offline

viper1234 wrote:

You're right if it turns out that Gripen's are actually cheaper to buy AND maintain... but the word on the street is that actual performance has been far less than advertised with respect to maintenance and supportability. Additionally, any claim that the Gripen is superior in BVR engagement is categorically false. People are counting their chickens before they've hatched when it comes to the Meteor and without it the Gripen enjoys no real advantage (and probably no advantage at all over any future AMRAAM development) There seems to be a lot of exaggeration with respect to many of the products and capabilities that are marketed today (I include the F-16 in this). I think many opinions are based on these exaggerations especially since so few Gripens are operated abroad. It would be nice if someone from Czech Rep could weigh in on this. Until this happens, I guess we'll all be wondering

She is one sexy machine... (although a distant second to the curvaceous lines of the Viper)

Cheers!

Offisersbladet which is a publication for Norwegian military officers had a couple of articles on Gripen in Czechia and Hungary. This is what the Czechs had to say:

Quote:

En av
tingene som har imponert Oblt Mikulenka
under treningen, er den høye graden av
serviceability Gripen viser.
– Det viktigste er ikke hvor mange fly
du har på rampen på begynnelsen av
dagen, men hvor mange som fortsatt k
fly når dagen er over. Min gruppe start
med 10 fly om morgenen, og avslutter
med 10 hver gang. Serviceability var e
nøkkelfaktor for oss når vi skulle velge
jagerfly, forteller Mikulenka.

http://bfo.no/images/uploads/dokumenter ... t_3_06.pdf

A rough translation:
"One of the things that impressed over lieutenant Mikulenka most was the high degree of servicability Gripen can show.
-The most important is not how many planes you have on the ramp at the beginning of the day, but how many that still can fly when the day is over. My group started with 10 planes in the morning, and finish with 10 every time. Servicability was a key factor for us when we should choose fighter planes, says Mikulenka."

The main problems for Gripen's future upgrading is: Sweden's armed forces are mulling extensive cutbacks as a deepening economic crisis looms in 2008.

http://www.thelocal.se/9635/20080112/

The cost of running the Armed Forces is expected to exceed the military budget by between 1 and 1.5 billion kronor, Svenska Dagbladet reports.

Lietenant General Jan Salestrand confirmed that the military was experiencing considerable financial problems.

"I want to underline the fact that we are sticking to our allocation and looking after our finances - but this also means that we have to put measures in place to reduce our ambitions and operations," he told Svenska Dagbladet.

The military is weighing up drastic action in its bid to balance the books, with new directives scheduled to be sent out to its various units next week.

Measures under consideration include: terminating the contracts of soldiers in the Nordic Battlegroup in August; grounding 40 percent of fighter plane pilots; mothballing half of all JAS Gripen planes; reducing the size of military units; introducing shorter training periods for new recruits.

"We underestimated the costs of developing the Armed Forces into a mission-based force," said Jan Salestrand in a statement.

Newbie Joined: Jan 19, 2008 Posts: 1 Status: Offline

Atle wrote:

A rough translation:
"One of the things that impressed over lieutenant Mikulenka most was the high degree of servicability Gripen can show.
-The most important is not how many planes you have on the ramp at the beginning of the day, but how many that still can fly when the day is over. My group started with 10 planes in the morning, and finish with 10 every time. Servicability was a key factor for us when we should choose fighter planes, says Mikulenka."

Well, gotta remember that the Czech's perspective might be somewhat warped by operating older russian designs prior to the gripen.

Newbie Joined: Jan 11, 2008 Posts: 7 Status: Offline

nic_tester wrote:

Well, gotta remember that the Czech's perspective might be somewhat warped by operating older russian designs prior to the gripen.

Yes, that's correct, but Poland had the exact same background when they purchased their F-16's. It would be interesting to hear what their experiance is regarding servicability. What I've heard is that it didn't start so good at the deliveries.

F-16.net

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 versus Saab Gripen