SAAB Gripen : Updates and Discussions

EK3jkEsWkAIB1pI
 
  • Like
Reactions: RISING SUN
ER9YFb5XsAAZG1Q

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Anonymous_
ER9YFb5XsAAZG1Q

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 :ROFLMAO:
 
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
 
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.
 
can you explain where MKiA performance will fall short except range?

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.
 
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.
How does the Mk1a compare to the Grippen - C/D.
 
How does the Mk1a compare to the Grippen - C/D.

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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Anonymous_