Foreign policy changes by the U.S. government have prompted at least two countries, Canada and Portugal, to reconsider buying F-35 fighters. A likely contender to replace them is the Saab Gripen. Military TV produced this informative comparison.
The Gripen is more like an F16 than an F35. Without stealth and robust networked data sharing, it is far inferior in contested airspace. Its maneuverability and speed don’t give it an edge in BVR and its range much shorter. If you are not worried about offensive capabilities or are doing counterinsurgency, a Gripen is fine. It is at a disadvantage in any near-peer conflict or highly contested airspace.
This is an apples and oranges comparison. If you want cheap and don’t want to frighten your neighbors buy the Gripen. If you want to get the job done buy the F-35. They make great complementary aircraft and work well together. Please choose better videos where they have done their homework. These guys certainly didn’t.
As an engineer for the very large respective company, this was click-bait and I took it. The author of the video has no idea what that airplane (F-35) can do. Like her sister the F-22, they have no equal. The F-22 has some upgrades coming, that will put her in a league of her own.
Gripen has had robust data sharing on the same level as the F35 since it’s inception. The Ja37 Viggen had the worlds most advanced datalink only beaten by the F-22 and Gripen C. (It could use two passive radars on two different aircraft to launch a radar guided missile towards an active radar). Gripens datalink is even more advanced and there is some info available online (Google TIDLS). Either way it’s definitely on par with the F35 if not better. (Gripen C could connect two different aircraft radars and not share radar targets but share the raw data from the radar and then combine it in each of the aircraft to get a radar that’s twice as powerful and better at detecting low RCS targets due to the fact the returns will be painting the target from two different angles and putting it together into one strong return(maybe strong enough to target look a stealth fighter where it would otherwise be undetected).
Gripen E is vastly upgraded. Each Gripen E has the EW equivalent of a dedicated SEAD aircraft with full 360° coverage with AESA GaN antennas to detect and jam all kinds of threats. Germany is buying the same EW suite to put on its dedicated 15 EW/SEAD Eurofigther EK set to replace their Tornado ECR aircraft. So imagine instead of 88 stealth figthers you have 88 aircraft that can each do the EW of dedicated EW/SEAD aircraft. Plus the GaN technology is unique in airborne radar(saab is the only one in the world using it currently) and this is a massive upgrade over traditional transistors (such as the ones used on the F35s radar).
Speed and manoeuvrability absolutely help in BVR combat, especially considering Gripens has the Meteor missile that outranges the best Aim120 by alot (I think it’s double the no escape zone of the aim120D) and the fact gripen E can supercruise at mach 1.2 carrying 4 air to air missiles.
Oh and also Gripen E has almost twice the range of the F35 while carrying a centerline drop tank(4000km vs F35 2200km(no external drop tank) and I doubt an external drop tank on the F35 would almost double it’s range so the only real advantage the F35 has is its stealth which is very hard to estimate the effect of. Saab has recently said they improved their AWACS to be able to track a “stealth target” at the same range the older model could track a normal sized (1,5m^2 target) a few years ago and these same improvements are coming to all gripens.
As usual Americans assume they are the best without doing any research whatsoever. The main reason countries chose the F35 over gripen is the politics and security guarantees involved, now that that is no longer the case Canada, Germany and others are having regrets.
Here is an interesting article on the subject of gripen and saab.
William, supporting the Gripen makes sense, it’s a solid aircraft. But not to throw a wet blanket on things, its reliance on the F414-GE-39E engine, controlled by U.S. export rules, leaves Gripen sales vulnerable to political influence. This isn’t a design flaw, but a major hurdle Saab must clear to expand its global sales.
The Gripen’s clear advantage is its lower operating cost, roughly $4,700 – $8,000 per flight hour versus the F-35’s $33,000 – $38,000, according to Jane’s Defence Weekly and others. Yet there’s doubt that this alone can offset the risk of U.S. restrictions. Without a backup engine, Saab’s ability to market the Gripen as an independent option could be problematic.
Some Canadian military people were very strong on data sharing.
For example, over the Beaufort Sea Canada and US would be able to dispatch one fighter each instead of two, as they could share radar map data.
But competitors have been trying to improve capability, how close they are is a question.
For me as a Canadian, the biggest issue now with the F-35’s suitability for Canada’s use is whether the Canadian military will be able operate and maintain the aircraft if the aircraft’s maker is told to prevent it.
My understanding is that the F-35’s systems need to be in regular networked interaction with Lockheed for maintenance and operations (and maybe targeting, who knows), and that Lockheed controls the flow of spare parts. The US government could order Lockheed to obstruct that, as a way of weakening Canada’s F-35 fleet and pressuring Canada.
Back when the US was a reliable friend and ally of Canada, that was not a significant factor. Now that the US Government has chosen to be hostile to Canada, it matters a great deal.
The whole Trump2 thing is crazy - Canada and US jointly defend North America, their agency is called NORAD. Canadian and American military persons staff the bunker in Colorado.
Canada is rightfully accused of being cheap and devious in how much it spends on defence. And it is not funding the missile defence system.
I don’t know what proportion of the DEW line radar chain each paid, it is mostly on Canadian soil (some stations in Alaska, some in Greenland).
(Earlier radar chains were much closer to the US so not as helpful to Canada. The DEW line is near the north coast of Canada plus of to the sides.
Well, perhaps not Mexico which technically is in North America, not as much concern about attacks from the south - but which way would they come from China? Look up Great Circle routes.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.