What's new

Forget about the F-35, countries should be buying Saab’s Gripen fighter jet

A.P. Richelieu

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
7,724
Reaction score
4
Country
Sweden
Location
Sweden
http://www.airforce-technology.com/comment/forget-f-35-countries-buying-saabs-gripen-fighter-jet/

Forget about the F-35, countries should be buying Saab’s Gripen fighter jet

MarketLine Line

Image: Finnish Aviation Museum.

The Gripen NG fighter jet by all accounts is an excellent fighting aircraft and in direct comparisons can keep up with the world’s best, costing nearly half the price of the F-35.

Gripen performance is very strong even compared to the most expensive fighters
When comparing the Gripen to other fighter jets that are available on the market, things look very positive for Saab, despite the difficulties finding clients. The jet can outcompete the Eurofighter for instance in a number of key areas. Whilst there is never a perfect fighter and each will have its downsides, the Gripen’s lower price tag is not backed up with lesser performance. Whilst being nearly $40m cheaper than a Eurofighter the Gripen has a better range, higher speed, less weight and lower operating costs. Currently the Eurofighter can provide a larger range of variant types to suit different operating roles, but ultimately the Gripen can carry all relevant NATO spec weapons, so countries are not lumbered with new weapon costs or retrofits.

Gripen’s overall cost of a fleet of 150 NG Gripens for more than 40 years is approximately $22bn. Which when compared to the F-35 that the USA and UK are purchasing is significantly cheaper at 48% of the cost of a fleet of 65 F-35As. So effectively a country could purchase a great deal more fighters and still save money over the F-35. Ultimately unless the country is requiring some unique and staggeringly expensive stealth technology (which is the technological focus of the new breed of top fighters) then the Gripen is an extremely good package for the money compared to what else is available.

The Gripen NG includes some excellent technology advances
Gripen includes some unique tricks in order to maintain an advantage and keep the ability of the vehicle high, without compromising the intended low price point of the vehicle. AESA radars have changed aerial combat, offering huge improvements in range, resolution, fast scanning capabilities, stealth and reliability for radar systems. But the system does have limitations in its rather narrow field of view. Saab has used a clever spinning ‘repositioner’ in the nose of the jet which allows the angle to be increased significantly.

This allows the Gripen the ability to take a shot from beyond visual range, and then turn 90 degrees in avoidance tactics, while still providing mid-course updates for the missile fired and keeping situational awareness high in mid combat. With new missiles that have extreme ranges, like MBDA’s Meteor, a Gripen NG could fire at enemy fighters at extreme range and then effectively hide from enemy radar and infrared tracking systems used on other types of fighters, while still guiding its missiles. This development, though relatively minor in cost, provides a major benefit to the new series of Gripens and is one of the ways that the Gripen can maintain relevancy when compared with its peers.

Current foreign customers are relatively small military powers with small orders
Whilst the specific selling point of the Gripen has been to capture western friendly nations that cannot afford more expensive machinery, part of the problem for the future is that these countries have a small demand for vehicles and update slowly and in limited orders. Coupled with this the bidding process is expensive and fraught with difficulties, usually requiring numerous commitments from defense companies to secure loans for the country or to manufacture the vehicles in the country. Despite some positive orders in the past it is difficult to see Saab raising more than 50-100 new aircraft sales from its existing friendly clients, which means that in order for Saab to meet its expected orders of 300 aircraft, it will have to find multiple new clients, that meet Sweden’s arms sales criteria.
 
. .
Gripen has always been an in-between fighter. There are better alternatives and Gripen couldn’t get many customers before 5th gen fighters came to the scene. The F-16 has always been the preferred alternative as opposed to Gripen. Broadly speaking, Gripen falls in the F-16 performance category. Gripen has always existed as an underdog in the presence of Rafale, EF and the likes. Today, it is a different ball game. The latest Gripen variant is at best a 4.5th gen fighter. That is, a 4.5th fighter in the F-16 league. Not the EF and Rafale league. These are fighters which have matured immensely and are still receiving upgrades in the years ahead.

Comparing the Gripen to EF is like comparing apples with oranges. The Gripen might have a few advantages here and there, but the latest EF tranche is an entirely different beast. The F-35 is miles ahead in every aspect. A fighter which is one generation ahead.

Gripen has no convincing argument to pick its fighter over the EF and F-35. Customers seeking top of the line performance won’t acquire Gripen. Gripen is cost effective, but it also has shortcomings that come with being cheaper/cost-effective.

The Gripen could only tempt emerging markets where cost is an issue. Countries that aren’t looking for the best, but somewhere in-between. This fighter cannot be compared to high end fighters.
 
Last edited:
.
Gripen has always been an in-between fighter. There are better alternatives and Gripen couldn’t get many customers before 5th gen fighters came to the scene. The F-16 has always been the preferred alternative as opposed to Gripen. Broadly speaking, Gripen falls in the F-16 performance category. Gripen has always existed as an underdog in the presence of Rafale, EF and the likes. Today, it is a different ball game. The latest Gripen variant is at best a 4.5th gen fighter. That is, a 4.5th fighter in the F-16 league. Not the EF and Rafale league. These are fighters which have matured immensely and are still receiving upgrades in the years ahead.

Comparing the Gripen to EF is like comparing apples with oranges. The Gripen might have a few advantages here and there, but the latest EF tranche is an entirely different beast. The F-35 is miles ahead in every aspect. A fighter which is one generation ahead.

Gripen has no convincing argument to pick its fighter over the EF and F-35. Customers seeking top of the line performance won’t acquire Gripen. Gripen is cost effective, but it also has shortcomings that come with being cheaper/cost-effective.

The Gripen could only tempt emerging markets where cost is an issue. Countries that aren’t looking for the best, but somewhere in-between. This fighter cannot be compared to high end fighters.

The EF might have slightly better parameters, but not significantly so.

How many AESA equipped Eurofighters are there in NATO countries?

People buying Gripen E will be able to successfully defend against all
current 4/4.5 generation aircraft.

The Gripen E has mostly later versions of most of the electronics deployed on the Eurofighter.
Sometimes, they have the same Electronics.
That does not make the Eurofighter a different beast.
It is larger, which allows for more fuel, more hardpoints, but
will 20 EF defeat 40 Gripen E? That is not clear.

Countries does not have unlimited funding.
They have to ask themselves which solution provides the most bang for the buck.
 
.
Gripen NG no doubt is best after F35. IMO, it failed to sell due to political reasons and poor marketing approach.
Even Switzerland opted for F-18
 
. .
Gripen NG would be an excellent product in its class but comparison with F-35 is unwise.

The article says it is the best plane to buy, not that it is superior to all other aircrafts
in all possible situations.
 
Last edited:
.
The EF might have slightly better parameters, but not significantly so.

How many AESA equipped Eurofighters are there in NATO countries?

People buying Gripen E will be able to successfully defend against all
current 4/4.5 generation aircraft.

The Gripen E has mostly later versions of most of the electronics deployed on the Eurofighter.
Sometimes, they have the same Electronics.
That does not make the Eurofighter a different beast.
It is larger, which allows for more fuel, more hardpoints, but
will 20 EF defeat 40 Gripen E? That is not clear.

Countries does not have unlimited funding.
They have to ask themselves which solution provides the most bang for the buck.

Don’t compare any variant of the Gripen with the EF. There is no comparison. The EF is a vastly superior air superiority fighter. It has matured immensely over the years. I’m not going to waste any time on this.

The fanboy article you have posted has the audacity to make a comparison with F-35 which is one generation ahead. The article tries to make the case that the Gripen is cheaper and more cost effective. What the article conveniently fails to mention is that the F-35 is technologically leaps and bounds ahead. You pay more because you get more.

Do you think that Gripen will be the only fighter which will be fitted with an AESA radar? LOL all major fighters will receive this upgrade. Some already have and others will follow suit.

Why even bring up a question which you yourself cannot answer? Let’s not get into the numerical debate because that is just fanboy talk. There are so many factors that lead to a win/loss scenario etc. If we compare the fighters on paper, spec wise the Gripen simply falls short of premium fighters. Could you cite an established source which claims that the Gripen has newer electronics as opposed to the EF?

The bang for buck argument will only work with countries that are cash strapped. Frankly, you have already lost the performance argument when you have to cite bang for buck. You can pitch this fighter to nations that have no major regional threats. They can feel good about acquiring these fighters. Nations which can afford premium fighters won’t look at Gripen. You know that this is the truth.

Gripen has lost out badly in major tenders over the years. Everyone knows why this is the case. It simply lacks the horsepower to compete against the more established and premium fighters. Gripen is a Volvo. Good and decent. Gripen is not a Mercedes or BMW. Premium.

Another major flaw that a different member has already mentioned is that Gripen vastly relies on third party components. Major components which belong to a supplier/nation known for being unreliable and sanction prone. There is so much more to acquiring a fighter.

Gripen NG no doubt is best after F35. IMO, it failed to sell due to political reasons and poor marketing approach.
Even Switzerland opted for F-18

Gripen NG will take years to mature. It looks good on paper and I won’t doubt its capabilities, but we know that in this cat and mouse game the world will have moved on.
 
.
It's decent but that is about it.
 
. . .
Don’t compare any variant of the Gripen with the EF. There is no comparison. The EF is a vastly superior air superiority fighter. It has matured immensely over the years. I’m not going to waste any time on this.

The fanboy article you have posted has the audacity to make a comparison with F-35 which is one generation ahead. The article tries to make the case that the Gripen is cheaper and more cost effective. What the article conveniently fails to mention is that the F-35 is technologically leaps and bounds ahead. You pay more because you get more.

Do you think that Gripen will be the only fighter which will be fitted with an AESA radar? LOL all major fighters will receive this upgrade. Some already have and others will follow suit.

Why even bring up a question which you yourself cannot answer? Let’s not get into the numerical debate because that is just fanboy talk. There are so many factors that lead to a win/loss scenario etc. If we compare the fighters on paper, spec wise the Gripen simply falls short of premium fighters. Could you cite an established source which claims that the Gripen has newer electronics as opposed to the EF?

The bang for buck argument will only work with countries that are cash strapped. Frankly, you have already lost the performance argument when you have to cite bang for buck. You can pitch this fighter to nations that have no major regional threats. They can feel good about acquiring these fighters. Nations which can afford premium fighters won’t look at Gripen. You know that this is the truth.

Gripen has lost out badly in major tenders over the years. Everyone knows why this is the case. It simply lacks the horsepower to compete against the more established and premium fighters. Gripen is a Volvo. Good and decent. Gripen is not a Mercedes or BMW. Premium.

Another major flaw that a different member has already mentioned is that Gripen vastly relies on third party components. Major components which belong to a supplier/nation known for being unreliable and sanction prone. There is so much more to acquiring a fighter.



Gripen NG will take years to mature. It looks good on paper and I won’t doubt its capabilities, but we know that in this cat and mouse game the world will have moved on.
Gripen had won over Rafale in Brazil, The EuroFighter did not make it to the final selection.
Gripen has won ”somewhat” in Switzerland over EF and Rafale.
Rafale won in India, then it turned out that the real price was 2-2,5 x that the French indicated,
so India backed off. They are now considering Gripen E or F-16 due to cost.
Austria selected Eurofighter but basically screwed up and want to get rid of them to save cost.
Gripen looks like an attractive alternative.
Everyone wants to get rid of their EF Tranche 1, but noone is buying.
Sweden does not sell to the Middle East, where Dassault and the Eurofighter consortium does most of their sales.
If we do not count the countries of origin, and the Middle East, the Gripen is a more successful fighter.

The Eurofighter consortium has been active in getting AESA for Eurofighter,
but no NATO country is upgrading to AESA.
The Eurofighter without AESA lacks a lot of modes. SAR is essential for Air to Ground.
Both the Eurofighter and SAAB uses Selex. Thie difference is that the Eurofighter is using what Selex developed 10 years ago. SAAB is using what Selex (and SAAB) have developed recently. IRST is quite improved as an example.
Gripen E has GaN based EW, and the radar has improved capabilities to detect stealth aircraft.
The wider search arc of the Gripen E Raven radar is a force muliplier,
since this allows the aircraft to move away from the target, while maintaining radar lock.

Larger aircrafts may have more hardpoints, more fuel, and thus longer range,
higher speed, higher altitude or whatever.
That does not make them better if you are looking for a fighter.
What counts is if they can achieve first detection and kill the other aircraft.
Gripen is known to be hard to detect, and has a superior datalink.
That will make it hard to kill for the other Eurocanards.
 
Last edited:
.
Gripen had won over Rafale in Brazil, The EuroFighter did not make it to the final selection.

The Gripen clearly won because of cost and geopolitical reasons,the Rafale was more costly for Brazil's needs,despite having the favors of the late Lula,but not that of Dilma.

Gripen has won ”somewhat” in Switzerland over EF and Rafale.

Here again,it was chosen by Switzerland because of its relative smaller cost compared to the EF and the Rafale,and like in the case of Brazil,Switzerland has no vocation to conduct a regional policy and does not, in principle, intend to attack or protect itself from its neighbors.

The Gripen was clearly more suited for their needs : An affordable platform suited to perform air defense and surveillance of the territory but not to operate in an emergency and particularly tense context..... who's seriously going to attack Brazil or Switzerland ?

Performance wise,the Gripen was well inferior compared to its competitors if for exemple we look at the results for Switzerland's competition....

The Gripen has one major flaw and that is its use of parts sourced from other countries. That makes the use of the fighter a problem for the country's foreign policy.

@Dalit Argentina expressed interest for the Gripen,however many components being British,the latter would have vetoed the sale for sure.... The problem with outsourcing many components to third parties....
 
.
Gripen is extremely expensive for what it offers. At best, its flyaway cost must be no more than $40 million.
 
.
The Gripen clearly won because of cost and geopolitical reasons,the Rafale was more costly for Brazil's needs,despite having the favors of the late Lula,but not that of Dilma.



Here again,it was chosen by Switzerland because of its relative smaller cost compared to the EF and the Rafale,and like in the case of Brazil,Switzerland has no vocation to conduct a regional policy and does not, in principle, intend to attack or protect itself from its neighbors.

The Gripen was clearly more suited for their needs : An affordable platform suited to perform air defense and surveillance of the territory but not to operate in an emergency and particularly tense context..... who's seriously going to attack Brazil or Switzerland ?

Performance wise,the Gripen was well inferior compared to its competitors if for exemple we look at the results for Switzerland's competition....

Switzerland is rumoured to have used a derating factor on Gripen E (capability * 0,7 according to some claims), because it was not available.
Someone making a decision today,
would not use a derating factor, or it would be much closer to 1.

Gripen E have improved on Gripen C much much more than competitors have improved since the
MMRCA tender as well.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom