Aside from not being made by the US, is there anything good or useful about the Gripen? Is it even better than the F-16?
It has US engines and no plans to fit any non-US engines.
No, it's just a hipster jet
>>65188286how can you judge something that has barely seen service in combat?
>>65188317How good it is or isn't isn't something the kids really care about (that's basically homework), they just decide if they're on team fanboy or team antifanboy and shitpost away.
>>65188286If it were better than the F-16 then the eurofag nations would have bought it in bulk.
>>65188474every country has an autistic dream. sweden's just happens to have wings.
>>65188286It's the worst western 4.5 gen on the market. It's not a better choice than the F-16, that's why it's losing contracts to the F-16.
>>65188594To be fair, these contracts are rarely decided by JUST the performance of the airframe.Sweden generally ALSO loses on logistics/supply chain support as well as the performance. Their biggest advantage is not being the US or france, but the plane relies on US engines so it can never really be offered to totally non-western aligned nations.
>>65188608>to be fairEngineering design isn't fair, the Gripen is the worst 4.5 gen on offer in the west.
>>65188657Wanna know how I can tell you didn't read my post?
>>65188661I did. The design of the plane is so much worse than other planes on offer that the other factors really only matter if you're only looking at the F-16 as well. The plane is bad and that's why it never wins contracts. There's no need to go further.
>>65188286>Is it even better than the F-16?lolno. Not even the gimped export version, let alone the full-blooded US version.
>>65188675You clearly didn't, or you're just bad with english.I literally said >>65188608>these contracts are rarely decided by JUST the performance of the airframe>Sweden generally ALSO loses>as well as the performanceI'm literally agreeing with you and you reply back as if i'm disagreeing with you.You're either not reading my post, or you can't parse an english sentence, take your pick.
>>65188286Is this still about Canada having a performative meltie because Trump’s being retarded?
>>65188700>gimped export version, let alone the full-blooded US version.no such things
>>65188724>I'm literally agreeing with you and you reply back as if i'm disagreeing with you.I hate this shit so fucking much anon. I have a desire to ague with him just out of spite. You give these dumb fucking teenagers an inch and their insecurity explodes all over thread for suggesting there might be a shred of nuance to the entire topic and they shouldn't just work the shaft of the [thing they like] every second they can. The idea that this shit can just feel any amount of satisfaction for anything, bothers me. >>65188675you dumb illiterate fuck. fuck you
>>65188286Theoretically, and this is just me spitballing here. Maybe the rights to manufacture it could be gotten more easily compared to an F-16V. Imo that's always better than buying in the long run.
>>65188728Trump is never retarded. Nor is he senile.
>>65188793Pretty sure Trump wakes up every morning in a pool of his own piss and spends the first 10 minutes of every day trying to figure out where he is.
>>65188795>isn't Trump so dumb, fellow /k/edditors? Definitely be sure to vote blue for more taxes, gun control, and illegals.
>>65188803you forgot>im so far left you get your guns back
>>65188803>for more taxes, gun control, and illegals>implyingBet you still think other countries pay the tariffs
>>65188286listen, they make about a dozen Gripens in a decade, the USA makes hundreds of F-16s an hour.
>>65188813I mean, that doesn't actually mean anything. Lots of crap has high production rates
>>65188808Incidence is complicated because there's the immediate substitution effect combined with longer term allocative effects. The last I saw it looked like about 85% of the tax was being borne by U.S. importers and consumers. However, how that plays with new investment in U.S. manufacturing and trade flows remains to be seen. I've yet to be convinced there's a less expensive, less invasive way to wean the economy off fragile global supply chains that run through our adversaries than tariffs. So while not perfect, the Trump tariffs seem to be serving an important purpose, and if they raise revenue in the meantime, that's a plus.
>>65188833It means no one is buying gripens, which is because it's a worse aircraft. This isn't that hard to understand.
>>65188608>these contracts are rarely decided by JUST the performance of the airframeExactly. Huezil bought the Gripen due to transfer of technology and it being a cheaper option than the Rafale or F/A-18, the other competitors.
>>65188286It's better at operating from austere runways than any other fighter jet in service, in the whole world. That's pretty much it.
>>65188286What are you going to arm it with, because SAAB and the Swedes certainly don't have an answer to that question.
>>65188754source: trust me bro
>>65188861No one is buying Gripens because they're made by Sweden and Sweden is a tiny country that can't open any doors. The United states of America has poisoned the playing field with fake statistics and made up data to justify their attempt at a monopoly on the international arms trade. The F-16 is probably the worst performing 4.5 gen fighter plane in the history of aviation and is only bought by nations that want to enter in the good graces of the USA. Indeed one could look at the F-16 and mistake it for a giant pile of shit and never once be blamed for the mishap for it is in fact just so unbelievably shit.
>>65188949Exactly friend. They have no sources that aren't completely fake. Every piece of data ever provided for the F-16 has proven to be a complete fabrication. This is commonly known and doesn't need to be verified unless you're stupid.
>>65188937Missiles, bullets and rockets. Occasionally bombs.
>>65188286cheaper than the F-16You don't need to be on good terms with the US to get one. Can take off from more basic facilities
>>65188989>cheaper than the F-16It's much prettier too. So graceful.
Why do euros love canards when everyone else with sense doesn't use them?Plus, they're ugly as fuck
>>65188989>don’t need to be on good terms with the USI mean I suppose you don’t need the engine of a plane that you’re never going to actually use.
>>65188989>cheaper than the F-16>You don't need to be on good terms with the US to get one.Planes are generally cheaper without the engines, yeah.
>>65188998>>65189003Everyone that has them seem to be flying fine
>>65188949>>65188964the concept of ''monkey models'' is very brown minded in and of itselfthe USSR doing business this way doesnt come as a surprise
>>65188286The main problem with Gripen is that it has been designed for real existential peer war, not for low-intensity conflicts.That's not just fashionable these days. But doesn't that mean it would be ideal for Ukraine? Yes, yes it would. But there comes SAAB's second problem--their failure to sell Gripen has led to limited industrial capacity. They can't make enough of them fast enough.
>>65189064>The main problem with Gripen is that it has been designed for real existential peer war, not for low-intensity conflicts.
>>65189075No, he's right. the main problem both the US and Russia have faced (and that has been theorized for decades now) is that the good shit is too expensive to produce compared to effective enough counterparts. I don't think the Gripen was made to be best in class from even a planning stage. For what it is it's easy enough to produce the problem like he said is that it's (lol) sweden selling and producing it. Kinda like the jf-17 fighter.
>>65189139>Kinda like the jf-17 fighter.Not for Sweden but for the pakis and chinkadoodles
>>65188594what is lobbying?
>>65189264skill issue on sweden's part apparently
>>65189264cope for an inferior product
>>65189064>The main problem with Gripen is that it has been designed for real existential peer war, not for low-intensity conflicts. No. The real hurdles are: 1) Sweden has no lobby power; 2) Sweden can't build them quickly enough (even with huezillian support); 3) There are thousands of F-16s already on the market, meaning lots of second-hand spare parts; 4) It's not a completely ITAR-free product, and the swedes don't seem willing or able to develop it into one.
I think that fwiw, South Africa's Gripen situation is also part of the influence in this. None of their Gripens are airworthy but it is their only active frontline fighter apart from Denel's two corporate Cheetahs that have been retained, but then again, the boogaloo is descending upon them fast, so it doesn't even matter.
>>65188474They might have done that if Saab could produce enough Gripens to compete with the glut of F-16 airframes and upgrade packages offered by LockMart. But, they cannot.
>>65188286>Make airplane for swedish conditions>Sell it to other air forces>Make canadians and other nations who can't make fighter jets seetheAnother swedish win.
>>65188286They are well designed for dispersed operations concept and have support system build for such Gripen operations.
>is there anything good or useful about the Gripen?It's based AF
I'm new to jets and I devoted a solid ten minute's research into the matter. What I found is that one is the correct choice if you're a richfag, and that the other is the correct choice if you're a poorfag
>>65188286combat performance? nobut it has been designed for dispersed use from roadbases.it only needs a skeleton crew for service between missions. so if you are nation that expects to fight against a superior airpower or are short on manpower the gripen might be an option
>>65188989>You don't need to be on good terms with the US to get one.since all the parts that matter are US, doesn't that just add another set of Zio-fags to nix-committee?IIRC it also has parts from France, Germany and UK at least, so that is at least 3 more very problematic Zio-fags.
>>65188286it can be operated by a fucking monkey with 3 weeks of sim experience and fully rearmed, fueled and non critically maintained by a crew of conscripts on a road in the middle of nowhere. its better on paper than f-16 but it loses heavily in the availability of spare parts because there aren't thousands of them mothballed everywhere. it also costs 20-30mil more per frame so if you are just looking for air policing jets the f-16 is a smarter choice because you can simply get more of them and the global market exists.
>>65189473PS-and I'd rate Swedes themselves as more likely to nix shit, with their pathological altruism autism.If for example Italy bought Grips then started to defend themselves from Jewish sponsored Mud Monster invasion from Africa, you know what childless cat-lady run Swedish Govt would do.
>>65188793True, he has been tested like 3 times already
>>65188317Stat sheets, air shows, exercises... and speculation.Although "hasn't seen combat" can be bad too.
>>65189064SWEDEN, YES!
>>65189064Wouldn't you want good performing planes in an existential peer war?
>>65189520You want planes that can take off before anything else. Right now every single plane Ukraine flies is from dispersed airfields. They move them around constantly for every mission, the Gripen can do that better than any aircraft they currently have. Which means more sorties. I´m watching the press conference, they´ll be getting 16 c/d variants at the start of 2027 and Ukrainian pilots are flying Gripen right now and have been for some time, they ordered 20 Gripen E which will be delivered in 2030. The Gripen C/D can fire the meteor missile and it sounds like they also will be getting them, Zelensky talked about pushing back the Russian fighters dropping glidebombs back with the meteor missile which should be possible.
>>65189614In addition, battles of any kind aren't usually decided strictly by the spec sheets of the hardware involved. As long as they're not a hindrance or wildly outmatched it's usually fine. Maybe not optimal, but fine. A good plane in the air is a lot more useful than a great plane grounded.
Better sales numbers arent a tell all.US military products are very much tied to politics.Often quality or cost benefit isnt the priority when buying them. They are almost always tied to political deals.Sweden is politically irrelevant so nobody needs to curry favor with them.At least the french can promise a UN veto.
>>65188795>>65188808Brown coded posts
>>65188286>Aside from not being made by the US, is there anything good or useful about the Gripen? Is it even better than the F-16?No its not better than the F-16 and the only thing it has going for it is that its modular so its easier to service. Its smaller than the F-16 and inferior in overall performance. Gripen does nothing that an upgraded Viggen could not do. Its is a 1970s jet with modern electronics comparable to chinese-paki JF-17.
>>65189724>Being this delusional.
>>65189725>>Being this delusional.The engine used in Gripen is that same engine that goes into the F-18. Except that the F-18 has two. Gripen has the same engine as the republic of Korea trainer FA-50. Gripen is so lightweight that it has half the engine power of the F-18, which was originally part of the lightweight fighter program from the early 1970s.
>its worse than the f-16But why?>the performance is worseBe more specific.>>65188997The Chinese and Russians use them on the J-10 and Su-33.
>>65189730Modern gripen variants use the F414, not the F404.
>>65188989>cheaper than the F-16Not only is it not cheaper than the F-16, the export cost is equivalent to or greater than the F-35 and F-15EX.
>>65189777Significantly cheaper to operateAlso your export cost figures are bullshit, you're almost certainly pulling them from contracts that include munitions, simulators, training, logistical support, spare parts, spare engines, etc.Sure when you add all that shit into a contract and divide by the number of airframes you'll get $150-250M per plane, but the ACTUAL cost of the plane itself is half of that number or less.Same deal when you see F-35 deals.The Swiss F-35 deal for 30 F-35s at about $7.5B is right around $250m each despite the fact we know F-35s only cost $80M or so each on paper.
>>65189490I honestly can't decide what is funnier, if the American empire's carefully built structure of influence and institutions is being dismantled by a clever conman or if you let a senile granpa wander in and piss it all away in a confused haze, both options are pretty hilarious.
I'm brazilian and our air force has them. Don't tell me we made a bad deal...
>>65189824For brazil it was an amazing deal, you got local production, technology transfer, and your foot in the door for future upgrades or maybe co-development work with sweden.For a first world nation it's a bit of a let down, but only because better jets are available for them.Brazil probably could've gotten a better jet, but they wouldn't have gotten technology transfer or local production, which is worth a lot more than the improved jet performance would be worth.
>>65188957The F-16 has a long and stories history of getting shit done. Israel used them to blow up Saddam Hussein's French made nuclear reactor when no other plane in the world could have done it. It's now 50+ blocks later, it's refined to the point of perfection, it's relatively cheap, it's sold as a weapons package, it's an order of magnitude better than the chingchong alternative, and doesn't have a decade long waiting list like Saab/Dassault. You want the best, you go American.
>>65189824>>65189830Brazil also already has remarkably competent aerospace contractors making other things, so that tech transfer is of immediate practical use to advance home-grown stuff.
>>65189831Maybe you´re right, maybe you aren´t. Talk is cheap and we are not talking about blowing up sandniggers. The C/D version will be going up against Russian aircraft flown by Russian pilots right at the Russian border. We´ll see how it goes.
>>65189800>be a highly skilled US diplomat>make sure that years of labour directed towards maintaining ww1, ww2 and cold war era mutually beneficial strategic agreements keep rolling >lose decades of hard work due to Trump's random twitter rantsI like to imagine some diplomats or economists rage bait each other by saying "Hey look what Trump just posted on Twitter"
>>65189479This 100xThere were a LOT of high profile denial/cessation if arms exports from the Swedish government - notably agsinst the US in Vietnam- they stopped importing Swedish K's, military electronics, service contracts naval systems etc. The US held a grudge that lasted beyond the Viggen for it.This is not limited though - they've done it dozens of times against nations all over the world that bought their shit. Swecucks are their own worst enemy when it comes to export success.The Draken and Viggen lost out on loads of exports because of this swecuck cultural BS.
>>65189789>Same deal when you see F-35 deals.Woah, it's almost like it's an apples to apples comparison.>despite the fact we know F-35s only cost $80M or so each on paper.They're up to about $100M now, which is coincidentally about the same price as a Gripen. The $60M lowball number that gets thrown around is what the Swedish government themselves paid for the original models decades ago.
>>65189771>Modern gripen variants use the F414, not the F404.Only the Gripen E/F which hardly exists yet and the same engines is also used by the F-18 E/F aka Superhornet since about 30 years. Earlier F-18 versions used the F404 which is used in Gripen C/D which makes up for almost all Gripens in existence. Swedes have a hard time understanding that their "superjet" uses 30 year old american engines which themselves are developed off 50 year old american engines.
>>65189977>hardly exists yetBy what metric?There are more than 25 in active serviceanother 7 prototype airframes, and then 10-12 in various stages of production. That's almost 40 jets. The legacy gripen fleet is only ~250-260 airframes, so 40 jets is ~15% of the total production.
>>65189977I'm not really sure why you're talking about the engine rather than the aircraft.The viper uses a single engine out of an eagle, but it wouldn't really be useful if that was shit-talking it by saying the US 'low' fighter is literally half of their real one or something.
>>65189872>The Draken and Viggen lost out on loads of exports because of this swecuck cultural BS.Swedish men are feminine and easily intimidated. Swedes are also very cheap when it comes to things that they arent interested in because it is percieved as low social status or boring or something. Jet engines and material technology? Thats for nerds, and nerds are low social status boring people that talks about shit that normal people dont care about, so Sweden stops developing jet engines and instead assembles imported engines with some low end parts made in Sweden.Sweden has also stopped developing radar systems, the Gripen e/f radar is from Italy. Electric engineering is boring and only for nerds with thick glasses and ugly clothes. The Gripen is pretty much meaningless as a swedish aircraft, it is mostly composed of imported parts, and all its weapons are themselves imported. F.ex in case of an US-Chinese war, Sweden would not be able to build any aircrafts at all, and it would not be able to arm those that it already has with anything else than autocannon pods and dumb freefall bombs. Engines would eventually reach end of life and Sweden would not be able to rebuild them because the high temperature parts cant be made in Sweden, they are imported from the US. And Sweden will never ever invest in developing this tech locally.
>>65189614>meteor integrationPetukhs are currently shitting themselves on telegram over this. Also, I found out about the Gripen deal specifically because of the volume of zigger cope against airplanes and A2A missiles on /pol/ - it's like an evolved form of Streisand effect.
>>65189985>That's almost 40 jets. The legacy gripen fleet is only ~250-260 airframes, so 40 jets is ~15% of the total production.Oh dear our superduper jet which has 30 year old american engines that were made for a plane that first flew 8 years after Gripens first flight, a plane that the americans themselves consider to be obsolescent and not capable of taking on a peer opponent, the engines of that obsolescent plane, these are now in our latest newest superduper Gripen which represents about 10% of all Gripens in active service which is why all Gripens should be considered superduperjets. And these other Gripens, they use an even older engine from the 1970s developed for an aircraft that is no longer in use by the americans being retired in 2019. But we still like to go online and brag about how our superduper jet assembled from imported parts and hand me down ancient engines from America is so fuuuuucking goood because that is what we swedish vaginamen like to do to gain greater social status and farm izzat like the spiritual pajeets low testosterone swedish vaginamen are.
>>65190010Anon what is your point?The F-16V uses a GE F110-GE-129 or Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 from the 1970s/80s.The F-15EX uses two GE F110-GE-129's>they use an even older engine from the 1970s developed for an aircraft that is no longer in use by the americans being retired in 2019The F404 won't be retired from combat service until 2030 in the US military (specifically USMC).And the T-7A uses the F404 and it is slated to be in service for the next 30+ years.
>>65190017>T-7ACan you pick an example that doesn't spontaneously disassemble itself?
>>65189991>I'm not really sure why you're talking about the engine rather than the aircraft.The choice of engine or engines defines the potential airframe. A small engine means a small airframe and a small radar and a small weapons load. Because of scaling laws, the internal volume of an aircraft grows faster than the surface and frontal area, meaning that large aircrafts enjoy serious advantages over small aircrafts in terms of payload and fuel carried. This scaling is why the Concorde could supercruise at mach 2 across the entire Atlantic and that is why next gen chink and US jets are going to be larger than ever.Sweden developed the Gripen because of MIC corruption. It was not necessary to develop another "indigenous" aircraft made out of imported parts. It was sold to the public as a "save them jerbs" program. The Gripen was made small to keep fuel operating costs down which is how it was sold to the clueless boomer and greatest generation retard politicians who were penny wise and pound foolish. This also meant that it was gimped in performance. Since foreign air forces buy a fixed number of planes, they generally want as much bang as possible, and that means that they would rather buy 80 large planes instead of 80 Gripens because these 80 larger planes are like 160 Gripens if you start to count things like bomb load carried over a set distance and other practical things. Gripen was never meant to be used as a ground attack plane, it was primarily meant to be a point defense interceptor, with a secondary task for launching now ancient robot 15 against soviet ships. The robot 15 is in itself an interesting fossil, being developed from the robot 04 which entered service in 1959. By now its troughly obsolescent and suitable only against third world foes. An USN DDG could swat 50 of these things without breaking a sweat. Yet it is still sold to and bought by clueless euros.
>>65190010>Superbugs and growlers are obsoleteInteresting take smuggled in there.
>>65190027Go ahead, explain yourself.Detail every single time a T-7A has "spontaneously disassemble itself"I'll wait for your detailed report.
>>65190017>Anon what is your point?Anon I see that you are too dumb to understand the point because you lack the necessary prequisite knowledge and the ability to gain that knowledge. No, you dont need to tell me, I know that you have a degree in applied marxism, history (same thing) or political science because that is what people like you come from. Oh btw, the F-15 was supposed to be _replaced_ by the F-22, but America lost the ability to produce new F-22s, and now improved versions of this developed in the 1960s fossil is still in production. Its potent against thirdies, sure, but against a state of the art peer opponent? No way.
>>65190044>>Superbugs and growlers are obsoleteThe proper term is obsolescent, as in well on the way to being obsolete.
>>65190054Anon, you don't have a point, you're just here to shit on gripen.If you did have a point you wouldn't have to resort to whatever the fuck you think you're doing now.
>>65190052It's a contemporary Boing! product, so burden of proof is actually on you not me
>>65190078Glad to see you're not here for any serious discussion.The T-7As problems have been almost entirely software/design related, nothing to do with even a single instance of where it could "spontaneously disassemble itself."
>>65190041RBS-15 is sufficient to sink any Russian surface vessel in service or planned, why would Sweden need to replace it?
>>65188286It's the best looking triangle plane so it's got that going for it at least
>>65188286It's that time of the year huh
>>65188286Low maintenance cost and can be serviced in the field by conscripts with a couple months training. Can carry Meteors. Radar and EW suite should be comparable to the F16V.
>>65190054>but America lost the ability to produce new F-22sWe didn't lose the ability, we lost the desire. The F-22 is an incredibly expensive aircraft designed to counter a threat that was obviously never going to exist. It offers a dubious increase in capability over the F-35 and once block 4 finally rolls out it won't even have that. The ATF was a bad investment from the very start and NGAD isn't much better. That money would have been better spent on any other service but especially the Navy.
>>65190319I mean, we DID lose the ability; it's not that we can't regain the ability; it's just too cost prohibitive to bother, so we don't.F-22s are physically impossible to produce right this moment, and even within 24-36 months it would likely be impossible without billions of dollars of investments.
Gripen is barely Swedish. Almost all subsystems are bought from other countries.
>>65190329Having a lead time is not the same as not being able to make something. That line is sort of true when we're talking about the sort of bullshit that went into making the Saturn V or even the Space Shuttle, you'd have to go back and reinvent a bunch of crazy thoriated beryllium alloys and shit that have been superseded by modern composites, or design something new that uses modern production methods. This is not true of the F-22; its design is not fundamentally incompatible with modern methods, we just don't currently have a production line for it running and no reason to start one when the upcoming F-35s are so much cheaper and better.
>>65188286It has much lower maintenance and runway standards
>>65188286It’s called the gripen for a reason. You can make an onahole in the back with the afterburner. You could try it, but bc you’re cock won’t fit in it like mine does
>>65190365I mean, it's far from a traditional long lead time, it would require standing up entire production lines that haven't run in 20 years with no one still around who was trained on the original, it would likely take a few years to get things going again and realistically you'd need to revalidate shit with modern digital design tools and the whole thing would be changed enough that it would require redoing flight testing, safety certifications, etc, etc.So it COULD technically be done, but the costs would balloon to such an insane degree that it would never happen. And it would take 5-10 years.
>>65189733One F404 engine is to dinky. F110 on F-16 is a bigger woosh shish spinner pusher that makes it more powerfuler
>random spergouts about testosterone and vaginas and marxismsure smells like vodka in here
>>65188286>Aside from not being made by the US>powered by GE F414 Yeah, it's cucked nonetheless.
>is there anything good or useful about the Gripen?30% of each aircraft is made in the UK.
>>65188957I expected the usual laid-off feds crying about Drumpf to be the saltiest part of this thread, but you, sweetheart, your third world outrage is a real treat.
>>65188298The best scenario would be to get the 16,000lb engine that's currently being developed by South Korea for its KF-21, which is a drop-in replacement for the current F414. But by then, it's a no-brainer to pick Gripen over it.
>>65190388Yes, that's called having a lead time. Compare that to making new Saturn V engines in 2026. If you think they're even remotely comparable tasks you're delusional.
>>65190461that engine isn't slated to enter service until the 2040s.So maybe sweden will use that engine for the Gripen G/H or a gripen successor if one ever exists.Or hell, the powerplant for an advanced UCAV.
>>65189441Surrender to the US is the correct choice for poorfags. >>65189800>>65189866>NOOOO YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY OUR BAD TRADE DEALS YOU JUST HAVE TOCan you hear me laughing at you from your mud hut?
some real salty miga tears over gripen, the canadian position must sting
>>65190805If Canada orders Gripens, all of their Hornets will fall apart by the first delivery.
>>65188724>>65188775Samefagging retard, he's pointing out that, even if you were comparing the Gripen with competitors from a pure engineering standpoint, then it still sucks donkey dick. He's saying that your post, which deals with the politics of the matter that make the Gripen even less favorable, is a secondary consideration. I don't even really know why you got so butthurt over this.
>>65190096>software/designSo standard Boing! jeetware. Spontaneous disassembly will come along with that soon enough, because there is assuredly jeetcode in the FBW software that will result in excursions from controlled flight regimes. You know I'm right, you just dislike my flippant tone. Which is fair enough I guess.
>>65188657>>65188594This method of repeating a claim instead of substantiating it with evidence or arguing is a type of shilling btw.
>>65188286Cheap upkeep. Cheap repairs. Excellent avionics. Great STOL abilities. Can be equipped with most modern robots, bombs, and missiles, depending on needs. Not sold by a super power that's constantly invading or bombing other countries, so supply of parts and units should not be a problem.Does it eat shit if up against F35s? On average, yeah. Does it eat shit if up against F22s? On average, yeah. Does it eat shit if up against F16? In some areas yes, in other areas no. Is its lifespan cost significantly cheaper than any of those three? Very much yes.There are plenty of potential benefits. If you have infinite money and can make any unit yourself, go with other stuff. For everyone else, it's a really good option.
>>65190232>That picBut Gripen is actually in serial production unlike the SU-57
>>65191201>Not sold by a super power that's constantly invading or bombing other countries, so supply of parts and units should not be a problem.the plane literally can't be sold without the USA's approval
>>65191210This is not true.NATO members can't sell arms to adversaries to NATO, so the markets that exist are free real estate. The US hasn't even once suggested to not sell SAAB engines even when competing for the same contracts with Sweden.Why are some guys so threatened by Gripen? It's just a nice value plane. What are you afraid of? Gripen can't hurt you (Sweden is a NATO ally). Chill.
>>65191224Do you know where the Gripen's engine comes from?
>>65191185Yes, which I agree with. Also, not same fagging you dumbass.>>65191189You're not right, you're just pretending it'll "spontaneously disassemble itself" because it's Boeing and then defending your reasoning for that simply by saying "lol Boeing tho."Fuck off. What's even the point in coming here if you're just going to make shit up and ignore reality?
>>65188286If you're needing a 4.5 gen airframe that's cheap to operate (per flight hour) and that you're on a budget than I think the Gripen fits into that niche very well. The main issue that I think is the main cause of the Gripen export woes is that the ppu for new airframes scares potential customers away, but that could be resolved with tech sharing deals as well as upping production in both Brazil and Sweden>>65191210>>65191237>the plane literally can't be sold without the USA's approvalSo why did the Ukrainian-Gripen deal go through? Knowing this administration, SAAB would have been told by DC to go pound sand when selling the Gripen to Ukraine.
>>65188286It's designed for a specific kind of war no one else is specializing for, this can only be done if you are focused on defence rather than offence because you never know who you might have to invade but always know what kind of territory you need to defend.They want to retain domestic production and this is a good way to go about it if you don't care about export sales.
>>65188286tiny rcs in comparison and the rare ability to supercruise
>>65188839Substitution just means you're paying higher prices, basically a defacto tax and transfer
>>65188839>I've yet to be convinced there's a less expensive, less invasive way to wean the economy off fragile global supply chains that run through our adversaries than tariffsuS manufacturing employment has been going down since liberation day tariffs.Want to know what other countries attempted import substitution industrialization; India, brazil, Argentina. Also you're coping, putting tariffs on Canadian raw material inputs has nothing to do with "supply chains that go through muh china". The potash supply chain in canada starts and ends in canada.
>>65189075It is.The whole thing is made to keep flying even when the air force bases are destroyed.
>>65190041>This scaling is why the Concorde could supercruise at mach 2 across the entire AtlanticConcord used turbojet engines not turbofans, that is key design feature for achieving super cruise.BTW F-22 essentially uses turbojet. On paper it's turbo fan, but with bypass ratio 0.3 it's closer to turbojet.
>>65189730It's not the exact same, and it's not manufactured in USA. Volvo has has a license to the engine, but the version they build is modified in several ways. For example the fan blades are Nitinol to be resistant to FOBS, and other optimizations.>>65191507Ukraine has realized that airbases are easily targeted by long range munitions, and are comitting to buying 150 Gripens, since its the only modern aircraft that be operated in a dispersed fashion across stretches of road anywhere.
>>65188286It can take off within 500 m (1600 feet or so) the F16 needs 800 m to 1.000 m. It fits the doctrine.
>>65191903>it's not manufactured in USA.The hot section is
>>65192255>It can take off within 500 m (1600 feet or so) the F16 needs 800 m to 1.000 m.nigga just build 300 m more wtf's wrong with you
>>65192435What if someone destroyed/overran your airports and you need other locations to start your aircraft? Suddenly 300 m less means much more possibilities.
>>65191266>So why did the Ukrainian-Gripen deal go through?Ukraine got 90 billion euros by the EU.
>>65191903The low tech engine parts are made in Sweden. The high tech engine parts is made in USA. But the engine is branded "Volvo Flygmotor" so swedes go its is made in Sweden!. Its like these african "car brands" that are chink cars assembled by some negroes in a hut. >>65190319>We didn't lose the ability, we lost the desire. The F-22 is an incredibly expensive aircraft designed to counter a threat that was obviously never going to exist.Thats just bullshit. The F-22 was scrapped so it would not threaten the F-35 project. It was purely political. Then it turned out that the F-35 was not the cheap miracle can do all aircraft it was sold as and the F-15 that was supposed to be replaced by the F-22 was put back into production because, uh, we need a twin engine aircraft that can lift a lot and fly fast. So we have a 53 year old jet being put back into production because of technological regression. >>65190100>RBS-15 is sufficient to sink any Russian surface vessel in service or planned, why would Sweden need to replace it?Its obsolescent. Similar missiles used against modern opponents have proven to be easily defeated. The chink C-802s fired by the houthtis against USN DDGs were easily intercepted and shot down, the closest any C-802 came was 13 kilometers. The problem here is that the missile is slow, lacks radar signature reduction and announces is presence trough its search radar from far away. The swedish navy is geared to fight against the soviet navy of the 1970s.
>>65192597But why would it matter? The swedes don't intend to launch them against US ships, and they don't intend to sell them to anybody who would launch them against US ships. And they're more than capable enough against slavshit.
>>65192597>The swedish navy is geared to fight against the soviet navy of the 1970s.The only naval threat to Sweden today is the remnants of the Soviet navy. Two Ukrainian Harpoon equivalents smoked the Moskva. A handful of Swedish Harpoon equivalents can likewise smoke the Ustinov.
>>65192597>Its obsolescent. Similar missiles used against modern opponents have proven to be easily defeatedAgreed, but on the basis that all military hardware needs to go through modernization efforts roughly every decade at the minimum>The swedish navy is geared to fight against the soviet navy of the 1970sSo the modern Russian Baltic Fleet
