Considering purchase & maintenance cost,.... the GRIPEN is our best choice! :thumb:

http://www.gripen.com/4.17aece8f9e5eefe8b7fff2528.html

http://www.gripen.com/4.3a1834fa3d6dee997fff747.html

The Gripen Fighter Aircraft

Gripen is the first new-generation multi-role/swing-role combat aircraft to enter service. It is designed to meet the demands of current and future threat scenarios, whilst at the same time meeting stringent requirements with regard to flight safety, availability, training efficiency and life cycle cost.
Fully integrated digital systems give Gripen the brainpower to use its strength and the intelligence to use its muscles to maximum effect. Its pilots can share real-time tactical information with friendly forces while remaining undetected by the enemy. A two-seat version of Gripen, which retains full operational capability, is also available for type conversion and technical weapons training and specialized combat missions.

Gripen was declared operational in the Swedish Air Force in 1997, which has 204 aircraft on order including 28 dual seaters, and where over 40,000 flying hours have been achieved in five fully operational, multi-mission squadrons. In December 1999, South Africa ordered 28 aircraft (19 single-seat and 9 dual seat), to replace their existing front-line aircraft. Since then, Hungary has ordered 14 Gripen’s (12 single-seat and 2 dual seaters) and the Czech Republic has also selected Gripen to meet its defense needs with a requirement for 14 aircraft (12 single-seat and 2 dual-seat). Both these countries will be the first Gripen operators within NATO. Gripen International, supported by SAAB and BAE SYSTEMS, continues to actively pursue Gripen export opportunities around the world.


Technical Summary

Aircraft data:
Length (excluding pitot tube): 14.1m (46ft 3in)
Length (Two-Seat variant): 14.8m (48ft 5in)
Wing span (including launchers): 8.4m (27ft 6in)
Height overall: 4.5m (14ft 8in)
Maximum take-off weight: 14 tonnes
Maximum speed: M2.0 and supersonic at all altitudes

Key Features:

• Advanced aerodynamic combining a close coupled canard-delta configuration.
• Lightweight structure employing advanced materials and construction techniques.
• The world´s most highly developed data link.
• Triplex, digital fly-by-wire Flight Control System for optimum combat agility.
• Fully-integrated avionic systems operating via five MIL-STD 1553B digital data bus highways.
• Advanced cockpit layout with large color Multi-Function Displays (MFD's) and Hands-On-Throttle-And-Stick (HOTAS) controls.
• Long range Ericsson PS-05/A multi-mode, pulse doppler radar.
• Powerful, fuel efficient, Volvo Aero Corporation RM12 turbofan engine.
• On Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) and Air-to-Air Refueling (AAR).
• Low visual radar and Infra-Red (IR) signatures.
• Heavy and varied weapons load covering all mission parameters - Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground, Air-to-Sea, Reconnaissance and Advanced Tactical Training - an unrivalled mix of simplicity and sophistication.
• 50% lower operating costs than its best competitor.
• “On-condition" maintenance.
• Capable of operating from simple road bases and dispersed bases with the minimum of maintenance personnel and ground support equipment.

Cockpit and Display System:

The Gripen cockpit is dominated by three large, full color, Multi-Function Displays (MFD's) and a wide angle diffractive optics Head-Up Display (HUD) with a holographic combiner. A highly efficient human-machine interface has been integrated into the Gripen to substantially ease pilot workload, particularly in combat situations. This provides a Gripen pilot with outstanding situational awareness, ensuring unrivalled operational effectiveness. It also increases the time available for tactical decision-making allowing the pilot to use the aircraft and weapons system to maximum effect.

The main functions of each display are as follows:
Head-Up Display (HUD) - providing FLIR imagery and weapon aiming information superimposed on the outside world at all altitudes.
Flight Data Display (FDD) - provides flight data and system status information about the engine, fuel and external stores.
Horizontal Situation Display (HSD) - provides navigational and tactical mission data superimposed on an electronic map of selectable scale.
Multi-Sensor Display (MSD) - presents information from the radar, FLIR imagery and other sensors. Flight and fire control data are also superimposed.

Radar:

The primary sensor of the Gripen target acquisition/weapons aiming system is the long range Ericsson PS-05/A radar. The Gripen radar is a compact, long-range, high performance multi-mode pulse-doppler radar with a modular architecture and high reliability, offering high resolution, excellent look-down performance and good Electronic Counter-Counter Measures (ECCM) capabilities. Using state-of-the-art technology, including fully programmable signal and data processors, the radar is able to handle all types of air defence, air-to-surface and reconnaissance missions with built in growth potential to meet future requirements.

Powerplant:

The Volvo Aero Corporation RM12 is a modular, fuel efficient, low bypass ratio afterburning turbofan in the 80 KN (18,000lb) thrust class. It is based on the General Electric F-404-400 which has attained several million flight hours in operations world wide - with several enhancements incorporated by Volvo including increased thrust and bird strike resistance.

I believe Thailand is getting a squadron.

is this fighter better than the F16?

It is a bit lika asking wich car is best, a BMW or a Honda. You will get different answers depending if you are talking performance, second hand value, cost and availability of spare parts.

The main difference between F16 and JAS39 is that JAS39 is a fourth generation Fighter so it is one generation newer than F16. The designation JAS stands for Jakt (Fighter), Attack (Attack) and Spaning (Reconnaissance) and means every Gripen can fullfill all three mission types. This means that you dont have to buy specialized versions. Gripen was buildt so it could use short roadbases and be serviced by conscripts. In Sweden we dont have any lead in planes since gripen is so easy to fly, all flight traning is done in SK60 Jet trainers And lastly Gripen has a lower cost per hour than F16.

So my answer is JAS 39 Gripen/Griffin is better than F16 Fighting Falcon

(If JAS 39 hadent been built, SAFs first choice had been the F-18 Hornet, Localy built and adapted by SAAB, a F-18S)

More on JAS


Example of a JAS being serviced on a Roadbase .

Link to pictures from an underground base, built during the Cold War

added a sentence.

Nice info, Viking.

What about reliability or stability?

Was there or is there any issue stating some defects in the design or the electronics of this war machine?

Number of crashes, if there's any and the culprit why?

What about maintenance? Will it be easy for the countries who might have purchased these to get technical assistance concerning maintenance.

Repair, upgrade, modification, retrofitting, parts and ammo, probably?

Can we afford it?

One prototype and the first series aircraft crashed, due to problems with the steering system and its software. The plane is instable in all 3d and wont be able to fly whitout the computer, this was done in order to maximise agility.

http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/Pari...dgripenpd1.html

The older A/B model have shorter range and cant carry heavy standoff weapons, but this have been fixed in the C/D model with reinforced wings and refueling probe.

Cant think of anything else just now ( 0500 in the morning in Sweden, iam a bit tired :armyeek: )

As per the Thailand deal, they say it costs around 20 million US dollars.

So thats around 40% cheaper compared to the US's F16 Falcons or F18 Hornets which costs around 50 million.

WOW! THAT'S BIG SAVINGS PLUS THIS Gripen IS A 4TH GENERATION FIGHTER ALREADY.

PERFECT CHOICE FOR OUOR AIR FORCE TO HANDLE ANY EXTERNAL DEFENSE SORTIES AND COIN OPERATIONS.

A good asset to help us protect our interest in the Spratly's and other concerns of great economic and political considerations.

Could you elaborate more on this one please.

What has been done to address this problem on the maximization of the aircraft's agility?

Is the final version free from all these troubles now?

What's the best advantage or the advantages of the JAS fighter over the American iron birds?

4Gen is one, right? Then again they still look the same so what's that really mean?

Maybe if compared to older block F-16s, not if compared against laterst block Falcons like RSAF F-16s.

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-...vanced-f-16.htm

Advanced versions of the Block 50/52 F-16s are difficult to tell from previous F-16s, as most changes are internal. However, the two-seat models of the Advanced Block 50/52 and Block 60 are equipped with a dorsal avionics compartment that accommodates all of the systems of the single-seat model as well as some special mission equipment and additional chaff/flare dispensers. Most aircraft are procured wit Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT) for extended range and mission endurance. The rear cockpit can be configured for either a weapon system operator or an instructor pilot and can be converted with a single switch in the cockpit.

Advanced Engines
Advanced Block 50/52 aircraft have a common engine bay that allows customers a choice of engines in the 29,000-pound thrust class. The Block 50s and are powered by the General Electric F110-GE-129 and have the Modular Common Inlet Duct (known as the large mouth inlet). Block 60 aircraft (for the UAE) are fitted with GE F-110-GE-132 engine, a derivative of the F-110-GE-129 that is rated at 32,500 pounds of thrust. The Block 52s are powered by the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 Improved performance Engine (IPE) which also has 29,000 pounds of thrust. The engine is configured with the Normal Shock Inlet (also known as the small mouth inlet). The aircraft is also equipped with an on-board oxygen-generating system replaces the liquid oxygen system of earlier versions to provide breathable air to the pilot. The system improves mission rate, maintainability, deployment flexibility and safety.

Targeting and Weapon Systems
For air/air missions, the aircraft is equipped with medium range missiles such as the AIM-120A AMRAAM. For close range combat, the aircraft can support the AIM-9X, IRIS-T, Python 4 and Python 5. The aircraft also retains the capability to use the six barrel 20mm Gatling gun. Block 52 configurations are also equipped with an advanced version of the APG-68 radar - the (V)9, while F-16E/F is fitted with the new APG-80 Active Electronic Scanning Array (AESA) system. These new radars have improved performance, higher processing speed and memory capacities and improved high-resolution synthetic aperture radar mode which allows the pilot to locate and recognize tactical ground targets from considerable distances. In conjunction with inertial aided weapons, the advanced F-16 gains an enhanced capability for all-weather precision strike from standoff distances. Modern F-16s of the advanced Block 50/52 can accommodate various targeting systems, including the Lockheed Martin Sniper XR/Pantera, and Northrop Grumman/RAFAEL Litening. These pods are used for target identification, acquisition and designation for smart, GPS guided munitions or laser guided bombs such as GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), SPICE guided weapon, and CBU-103/104/105 Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD). The later can also be cued by target data provided directly from the radar, in low visibility conditions. On recce missions, advanced F-16s can also carry autonomous reconnaissance pods on the centerline, on intelligence gathering penetration or standoff sorties.

Navigation Systems
A navigation pod, such as LANTIRN/Pathfinder and digital terrain models are contributing to a safe, accurate low level flight. The aircraft is also equipped with various navigation systems such as tactical air navigation (TACAN), VHF omnidirectional receiver (VOR), distance measuring equipment (DME), and instrument landing system. An integrated precision navigation suite consisting of a ring laser gyro inertial navigation system (INS), global positioning system (GPS), and digital terrain system (DTS) are also standard.

Cockpit Configurations
View of the cockpit of the F-16E/F (Block 60)The standard configuration of an Advanced Block 50/52 cockpit features helmet-mounted cueing system, which allows the pilot to direct sensors or weapons to his line of sight or to help him find a designated target. Head-Up Display and several color multifunction displays and advanced recording and data-transfer equipment is used to reduce pilot workload in every phase of the mission. The cockpit is compatible with night vision goggles. A common configuration includes multi-channel VHF/UHF/HF/Data communications, satellite communication and tactical data link systems (such as the NATO-standard Link 16), in addition. Link 16 provides secure, jam-resistant, high-volume data exchange on a multi-node network. Also standard is the combined friend from foe interrogator/ transponder, which permits autonomous identification to maximize launch ranges of radar-guided air-to-air missiles at distances beyond visual range (BVR).

hi there! :armysmile:

can anyone here tell me and others some specific information regarding the deal for Gripens that by the Czechs, the Hungarians, the South Africans and the Thais? could the Philippine Air Force avail of the same deals that they entered upon deciding to lease/purchase JAS 39 Gripens from Saab?

In europe it is fourth-generation but in US they would call it a 4½ generation fighter. this is not a set standard but a way to separate different planes by their capabilitys (this is probably the brainchild of a marketing department somewere)

Foreign Fighters Get Better

In a fourth generation plane you actually dont steer the plane yourself, you have a computer that inteprets your commands at the stick and move the plane accordingly, a human brain is not fast enough to be able to fly the plane. This way you can get the plane to do manuvers thats impossible in a third generation plane. and designwise you dont have to compromise. it is not possible to "uppgrade" an F-16 since you had to make a complete new design. Other planes that have this feature is Eurofighter, Rafale, Raptor. The problems with the Flight Control System is ironed out with upgraded software, and NO it is NOT Microsoft that delivered the software " System is shutting down due to error in........... :armygrin: :armygrin:

http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Attack/178JAS39.htm

The best advantage over US planes is that you get a modern plane that is affordable .

Instability

Maneouverability is at odds with stable flight characteristics.
To wit, it's hard to make a 'stable' flier whiplash into evasive aerobatics.
Think of errr, 'walking' as controlled, sequential 'falling forward' (every step).
What does that then make a tennis or basketball player's footwork?

The most agile F/A craft are INHERENTLY unstable, requiring constant
on-board correction via computer.

-------


I do not know that servicability of the Gripen is a strong point vs. the F-16.
We do not have the electronics infrastructure to support its avionics maintenance and service, and we certainly do not have the basic airframe checkup and refit infrastructure to keep them safe to fly (although that applies to ALL aircraft we might buy). If a long term servicing contract can be swung, then hey, great.

Pictures of a Gripen with all its hardpoints taken up is sexy to look at.
Pictures of an F-16 fully loaded are sexy to look at, too.
Does one or the other bring an advantage with regard to obtaining the weapons that these platforms look so sexy with?

Sounds like you prefer the Falcons.

But a Falcon cost 60 percent more at 50 million US dollars a piece!!!

While the Gripen,..

... a 4Gen, 20 million a piece, multi-role, better if not as reliable as its US counterparts, is still something worth considering.

:dunno:


Viking, despite the issues raised by horge, why do you say that the Gripen is still a better choice?

Could you tell us something more about how the Gripen developers were able to address the concerns mentioned by horge like stability and serviceability.

Flipzi,

Just to be clear... instability is a good thing.
Stability by its nature and definition, fights against maneuverability.

I'll be clearer still, that I wasn't knocking the Gripen.
I'm just pointing out that if we can't even service F-5's with their uber-bulok inability to pack AIM 7, AIM 120 or especially Harpoons...how much more a Gripen?
I guess I'm knocking ALL the options totted out thus far, no matter what their prices.

F-16 Block 50/52 will be fetching around 48 million per plane without spares/training. Eurofighter/Rafale will ping about 54 million, though there is no effin way we will be alloiwed to buy. Some say (without specifying single-seater or two-fer config!) the Gripen really costs 28 million apiece, tailoring to the paricular weapons suite you provide.

Bottom line is, we might NEVER buy brand new... our hands are tied, and so are the sellers: even Sweden's Saab, sorry. Even with cash in hand, surplus US stocks are our only allowed option, and that means battered airframes, outdated avionics and no weapons. Stuff gets old and has to be disposed, and nobody wants to be left holding old junk --they have to find someone to dump it on. We are that low on the food chain.

When Taiwan decides between getting surplus F-18 or waiting in line for F-35B's, some of their beat-up F-5E/F's ---about a hundred of them-- will have to be fire-saled to some poor chump, and that means us.

If it was me, I'd forget about buying fighter jets until I could support and maintain them.
I'd rather pump hard cash into kitbuilding COIN and MP aircraft, especially turboprop --with the manda that airframe x-ray and avionics servicing/upgrade be made standard features of both PAF and civvy aviation infrastructure. Only then would I dare to buy a Gripen or F-16...

Unless of course I can just lease a squadron --holding a locally-subcontracted servicing arrangement with the manufacturer. Just me.

Horge

There is about 60 surplus JAS39A stored in some old underground bases, that you could get a good deal on, and there is always a possibility to lease.

Horge

Normally there is a training and spares package in a aircraft deal, and i am sure that it wouldent be any problem to train your groundcrews to the same level as ours.
They have made a big effort in making the plane easy to service and repair in order to keep flight costs down. The onboard computer does all checks and the maintenance guy just connect to the plane with his laptop and downloads the results. And setting up an advanced technical center could be an part of a countertrade deal

as to weapons the plane can be tailored to carry what you want, it just a matter of money :aberet: SAF uses AMMRAM, Sidewinder, Maverick, RBS15.

As to needs, you need one squadron of jetfighers in the PAF because you have to be able to exercise control over your airspace and in order to keep the pilots knowledge in flying fast jets.

:agree: Thats the way to go, start in a small scale and gain knowlege and experience, Mayby a deal with SOKOR ??

http://www.laahs.com/art91.htm


Flipzi

If you buy a new plane it is an investment in something you might use up to 30 years, What do want to buy? F-16 that was designed 30 years ago or a plane where newer technology and knowledge are built in from the beginning ?

Myself

If the Philippines isn't allowed to procure them --and I'm not talking about financial cionstraints-- what's the point of buying the ultra capable platform for 'em? I mean, I love the RBS15 Mk IV's for solid SSM punch, but it may be a cold day in Cubao before JUSMAG won't strong-arm us into buying overpriced, decaying US surplus.

If we had the cash ---and I don't mean just the cash to afford Gripoens and their weapons suites-- if we had the cash to sustain our own AFP without US assistance, we'd still suffer from US pressure on its allies (including Swedish contractors, I fear) on 'what to sell/what not to sell' to the Philippines.

In a free, financially-sound Philippines, sure. Eighteen leased Gripens would be a perfect start, in a purchase push involving around forty other new aircraft of various types across the armed services.

viking,

i also agree that for the interim program, closing the deal in buying those f5e from sokor or even taiwan will help us a lot in getting the knowledge and experience that we need in getting our own squadrons of MRFs later.

based on your explanation, GRIPEN IS OUR BEST CHOICE.


horge,

we must not hold on to the belief that we cannot do this or do that because uncle sam or our current financial capability says so.

anyway, modernizing our capabilities require us to change the way we do things.

to modernize denotes not just buying new weapons but also changing the way in implementing this goal.

if this is a new plane then why is there a surplus already, has this not been upgraded to more recent models?

The decision to buy JAS (200+) was taken during the cold war and things has changed after the fall of Soviet. The SAF has been more than halved in the last 10 years so thats why it is a surplus. and actually their is more than 60 planes surplus but some are leased/uppgraded to Hungary and others are used in traning programs for Czech and Hungarian pilots.

Horge: Us can stop any sales since a lot of the subsystems ar from the US but i think it impossible to stop JAS and then sell F16. and as to weapons you can go to France or Europa But as you says its all down to money.

Flipzi: More F5s would be great as an interim solution.

Ps anybody heard about the NZ skyhawks, are they still for sale ?

Hi Viking,

Just what I recall, and was able to look up:
In a deal involving $50-odd million 13 of the remaining RNZAF A-4's were apparently 'sold' in 2002 to ATSI, an Arizona-based (USA) private contractor supplying 'bandit' aircraft for USAF and USN pilot training simulations, among other services. The planes had been withdrawn from service since December, 2001.

I say 'sold', because an MOA was inked, although obtaining releases from the various countries with a tech-security stake in the aircraft dragged on from early 2002 up to May 2003. IIRC, the aircraft were to first head to Australia for an ATSI training contract, and thence go home to Arizona. There's at least one A4 still mothballed in Woodbourne.

If anyone can confirm the foregoing, I'd appreciate it.



The Kiwi A4's had avionics/radar almost comparable to F-16 A/B's.
Pity we missed out on them, but just as well ---there was no money for the planes, for the weapons, and (most galling) the servicing and maintenance. The planes might have had another 10-12 years of service left in them.

anybody for objective comparisons?



http://www.gripen.com




http://www.f-16.net

the Gripen has 7+1 hardpoints for external stores, the F-16 boasts 9+2. harpoint +1 on Gripen is reserved for a targeting pod like Litening or an EW pod like U95, same goes for hardpoints +1 and +2 on F-16 (i.e. LANTIRN).

so that leaves us 7 and 9 hardpoints for weapons and external fuel carriage on the Gripen and F-16 respectively, now picture a sortie over, say, the Spratlys , which would require carrying at least 3 drop tanks: the Gripen would be down to a rather beggarly 4 hardpoints for AAMs and antiship missiles, the F-16 with 6 remaining hardpoints would then be carrying at least 2 more weapons than the Gripen for the same mission.

now consider these figures

Internal fuel:
JAS-39C: 2,270 kg
F-16C: 3,160 kg

obviously, the internal fuel capacity of the Gripen is rather limited compared to the larger F-16; assuming each is carrying identical amounts of external fuel, the F-16 will be able to stay in the air (and thus the fight) longer than the Gripen. and this is reflected in the following data

Range:
JAS-39C:
typical: 800 kilometers (432 nautical miles),
ferry: 3,000 kilometers (1,620 nautical miles).

Combat Radius [F-16C]
740 nm (1,370 km) w/
2 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 1,040 US gal external tanks
Range Over 2,100 nm (2,425 mi; 3,900 km)

conclusion: for any given mission, the F-16 is always able to carry more weapons and stay in the fight longer than the Gripen.

that is the reason why the larger, faster and more powerful F-16 is able to offer a lower operating cost per mission than the smaller Gripen.

the Philippines is not by any stretch of the imagination a country with "shortish borders" and we already have decent runways in close proximity to our borders at Puerto Princesa and Zamboanga respectively. we know we have an airfield in the Spratlys, but is anyone here really willing to risk landing let alone basing a precious frontline combat aircraft on one of those paved-over coral reefs?

payload and range calculations are by no measure 'sexy', these are the same things any ordinary motorist will have to take into account when planning a trip from point A to point B. the only difference is most cars don't cost $40 million.

Its indeed a nice aircraft but I sure wish if we do select this we could ask for one with a bigger internal tank and with thrust vector.

I keep forgetting the other alternative. Why don't we lease these fighters? If GMA has the balls she'll just need to get the needed funds from the debt payment percentage the budget has. Then go after FVR for the stolen funds that was to be used for modernization to buy more support crafts and training.

:bow: :bow: :bow:

Sus!

Baka ma-oust si GMA pag ginawa nya yan, parang si Erap nuon. :armyLol:

I am seeing a lot compromises in the way she runs the govt.

But let's see nonetheless who's really outsmarting who! :thumb:

:agree:

Better if we start from the basics..

:aberet:

gt6282, :agree: !!!

@possible

You can not just count payload and hardpoints because then i could prove that the B52 is superior..... And not all hardpoints are rated for the same weight or weapons. As a example if you load Gripen with RBS15 anti ship missiles you can only take 2 of them because only 2 hardpoints ar rated for the weight and that weapon. And the more weapons you hang under the wings the shorter the range gets because of the increased weight and drag, thats why you normally keep the weaponload down on long range missions if you cant do inflight refueling.

No it depends on how much fuel the engine is using and this depends on payload, altitude, usage of afterburner. One exampel is JA37 carried 4500kg and Gripen only half of that but still have 80% of Viggens combat radius

JAS-39C
Combat Radius 800 kilometers
Ferry range 3000

F-16C (MLU)
Combat Radius 900 kilometers
Ferry range 3400 kilometers

According to SAF Aircraft handbook.

Only marginally

Smaller means a smaller target and you can use a smaller engine. Gripens operating cost is mutch lower than the F-16 so even if you have to do 5 missions with Gripen to four with F-16 to deliver the same amount of ordnance, Gripen is cheaper because of lower costs and lower time in refueling and rearmament.

the distance between the SAF North F21 wing and the South F17 wing is the same as the distance between Aparri and Jolo..... "shortish borders" dont think so. :shades:

Being able to land on roadbases and small airbases makes it harder for a enemy to attack your planes on the ground and tell me why it is a risk landing a plane on a airstrip on a coral reef? The only thing you need is one technikan and 5 conscripts on the airfield in the spratlys, then you can land a Gripen and be refueled an rearmed in ten minutes. and Gripen is a multirole plane, its modern, its more agile than the F-16.

JAS39 Griffon/Gripen can start the day with a reconnisance mission in the morning, attack enemy shipping by 9am, bomb ground troops by lunch, and spend the afternoon doing air combat.

And finally i rather go for the F-18 than the F-16 :dancedevil:

dont just focus on the initial price. how long before an upgrade is required based on threat projection? (raptor is based on a scenario as far as 30 years from now). with the grippen's shorter legs, how much extra cost in maintenance from the higher numbers of landings and takeoffs compared to another plane (not just the tires but the airframe stress, engine stress on landings, etc. these add to the service hours, e.g. one hard landing could add an equivalent of 20 flt hours on the frame)? based on the refuelling capability, you now have to have more bases or more planes in the air. and dont forget, the engine is an f404 derivative which requires us approval for tech transfer...

Its not only the engine, a lot of other subsystems are bought in the US in order to save money on the development costs. But there is a goverment to goverment agreement that the US cant stop a sale and then sell themselvs. So as long they are willing to sell F-16 to you they cant stop a sale of Gripens

http://www.gripen.com

of course, but i am obliged to raise the subject nonetheless so i can point out some very interesting facts; speaking of which, thanks for saving me the trouble of sneaking this one in

as we can see from the illus the Gripen has 4 underwing hardpoints; now, assuming that your statement "only 2 hardpoints are rated for the weight (of an ASM)" is true, obviously you're talking about the innermost pair of stations, to wit



now, assuming ALL of your given statements above are true, well, it seems your fellow Viking has a problem, since according to the illus the inner pair of stations happen to be the only underwing stations plumbed for fuel...

you were saying that the more weapons hung underwing the shorter the range because of increased weight and drag, i would also assume that the problem gets worse if you sacrifice a fuel station; since one would also be justified in assuming that an anti-ship missile is something of a necessity when it comes to maritime strike missions, may i once again use the following figures for comparisom

again, the F-16C's range is not considered dramatically superior to the F-16A MLU, since they retain the same internal fuel capacity, besides i assume a pair of 2,000 lb. bombs would be heavier and less aerodynamic than an ASM, so that would wipe-out any advantage the F110-GE-100 engine of the F-16C has over the F100-PW-220E of an ASM-packing F-16A MLU; now, may i also raise the following

you forget to note my friend that we are doing an "objective comparison" here, so we assume each aircraft performing an identical mission, i.e. similar flight profile, same distance to target; since you invoked anti ship missiles, then an anti ship mission it is, question then: did the Flygvapnet indicate whether these figures

hold with 2,200 liters less maximum fuel capacity? - if they don't, well, the Gripen pilot has his hands tied: to reach his target and rtb, dogfighting or trying to dodge AAMs is out of the question, and then of course there's the target ship itself attempting to either confuse its attacker's sensors or shoot it down outright, God forbid that it happens to be escorted...but let's be charitable, let's say the Gripen sinks the damn thing and is now escaping from the scene of the crime with al indecent speed - or maybe not: remember, fuel is scarce, still need to watch that gauge...assuming, of course, the plane hasn't lost fuel from damage...

meanwhile, the F-16 pilot on the same mission: well, no threat of a fuel crisis here, the pilot can fly aggressively as necessary as he is simply operating within the ideal design parameters of his machine: max fuel, baby! - end of F-16 part.

now...

well? does this really hold using the same weapons loadout and mission? - as in, using a real-world combat configuration?

the F-16 is pretty small too.

cheaper to operate baseline? - perhaps, but the point is: given a real-world scenario, which machine offers its pilot a better chance of completing the mission and coming back alive?

besides, returning to a target you've failed to knock-out with one mission is extremely dangerous, the next strike package will no longer enjoy the luxury of surprise; simply sending more planes to do what you could otherwise do with less planes and pilots, were it not for your choice of aircraft, is not exactly what i'd call a smart trade-off.

how many Gripens does the Flygvapnet have in service and how many are deployed close to Sweden's borders? - so how many Gripens would the PAF require to provide similar coverage?

now, how many F-16s would be needed to protect the same area?

short-field capability is of course a well-known edge of the Gripen over most competitors; could you please clarify for us, then, if the Gripen's listed maximum take-off weight is retained when taking off from shorter airstrips? are any sacrifices in, say, fuel carriage necessary to lift off from a roadway rather than a runway?

as for the "risk" of landing a plane on a coral reef, there's a picture around here of the Spratlys airstrip: it occupies the entire length of the island, we actually have an (immobile) aircraft carrier in the KIG, no weather protection whatsoever with only hundreds of miles of South China Sea (and winds) all around; like i said, "basing" a frontline combat aircraft on that flattop is bananas, just "landing" one there in peacetime is already risky, why bother with those kinds of uncertainties in a shooting war?

"agility" of course is a matter of lengthy debate; but what is readily apparent is that with its range and payload advantage, the F-16 can comfortably perform at least three of those tasks in one mission, maybe all four if those "ground troops" are enemy marines on a beachhead; so while the Gripen pilot will be facing an extremely busy day (and multiple chances of getting shot down) the Viper driver will probably be pinning on a medal in Malacanang around 11AM and be on ANC around 12. afternoon is at the officers club. or maybe the Polo Club.

so where's the thread for that? :armygrin: