PDA

View Full Version : OT: Lockheed-Martin F-35 vs. Saab Gripen



ViktorViktor
05-19-2008, 04:01 AM
Norway has decided to retire its fleet of F-16s and is currently in the process of deciding upon which aircraft type will replace it.

The two candidates are the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) and the Saab Gripen (JAS).

There is a hot debate going on over which of the 2 aircraft is 'better'.

I am pretty much a novice when it comes to current aircraft technology and current air force strategies but would like to hear your opinions on the Gripen versus JSF debate,if you have any.

p.s. - Right now the JSF is being criticised for being relatively slow in comparison to other modern fighters.

Which aircraft should Norway pick ? Anybody got some advice ?

tragentsmith
05-19-2008, 04:45 AM
The french Rafale http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
05-19-2008, 05:34 AM
SAAB presented a new Gripen Version on march 23.
http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=929
this Gripen NG can carry more weopons and would have the ability of supercruise.

best visible difference to current Gripens is its main gear , wich is now retractet in the wingroots , not in the fuselage anymore. so there is more place for weapons under the fuselage.

Norway should go for the best interceptor ability with a big eye on the costs (or the worth for its own industry).
Interceptor ability is important i belive,because Norway is still guarding the Northern Atlantic gates i guess- having the new flights of long range russian Bears in mind.....

Groundattack is mostly depending on the avionics nowadays i think - so there should be no difference between the F-35 and the Gripen.

How the two planes perform in combat readiness, maintanance, air-to-air radar, climb i have no idea.

I would think if Norway would buy the Gripen - they could have a big share of the production of their own planes.
Not sure how with the F-35 this would work.


SO FAR, i look at the F-35 more as an attack airplane............... but without realy serious backup.
the Gripen more as a , sure more "lightweight" , multi role combat plane.

b2spirita
05-19-2008, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by tragentsmith:
The french Rafale http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


pffft Typhoon


Seriously tho, does performance really matter that much? I know, i know - vietnam, gunless f4s and top gun- but many fighters have lower top speeds than those of the last generation because experience proved them to be unessesary.

Is stealth capability not the main factor here?

I would state that the JSF offers a greater capability (assuming the program is not a failure) while the Gripen offers exellent performnce at a far lower cost

my 2p

rnzoli
05-19-2008, 05:48 AM
it's time for a proxy war to find out how they perform (economically http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

FliegerAas
05-19-2008, 06:19 AM
I'm not an expert, but everything I read about the Gripen so far indicates that it is very easy to maintain and can get back to a fight very fast. It was designed with hte possibility in mind to be able to fight without needing airports (the swedish thought behind this was, that in case of a war the airports are amongst the first targets.) I hardly know anything about the F35 however.

Klemm.co
05-19-2008, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
it's time for a proxy war to find out how they perform (economically http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
Sure, why not in your country? It could start this year. Need to perform some preparations and false accusations before that, though. So my guess would be the end of 2008 or start 2009. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Klemm.co
05-19-2008, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by FliegerAas:
I'm not an expert, but everything I read about the Gripen so far indicates that it is very easy to maintain and can get back to a fight very fast. It was designed with hte possibility in mind to be able to fight without needing airports (the swedish thought behind this was, that in case of a war the airports are amongst the first targets.) I hardly know anything about the F35 however.
Some versions of the F-35 can take off and land vertically, so just a small area and no real airport would be needed.
I've read somewhere that it is very maintenance-effective, so it shouldn't take too long to get back to the fight too.
Costs much more than the Gripen of course.

rnzoli
05-19-2008, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by Klemm.co:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
it's time for a proxy war to find out how they perform (economically http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
Sure, why not in your country? It could start this year. Need to perform some preparations and false accusations before that, though. So my guess would be the end of 2008 or start 2009. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If my country is involved, the Gripen has already lost without flying a single mission http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I was thinking of something more challenging for the F-35 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LovroSL
05-19-2008, 07:35 AM
Didnt norway finance the JSF a bit? (or was that denmark?)

JSF is better but more expensive, grippen is still good but cheaper. There were a lot of complaints about the gripen beeing small- low fuel, cant carry a lot of munitions and if you add fuel pods it can carry even less. Its engine also let some folks wanting more power. JSF on the other hand is something of an next gen F16- not as good as the F22 (just like viper and the F15), but carries stuff that goes boom and can dogfight if the situation calls for it. Otherwise its stealth is not as important- it doesnt work if you have outside weaponry (which will happen 99% of the time since it is s STRIKE airframe).

Xiolablu3
05-19-2008, 08:07 AM
Speed isnt everything,

Remember that the Harrier was also slow, buit thanks to great avionics, missiles and pilots, it didnt lose a single plane Air to Air in the Falklands vs much faster fighters.

Korolov1986
05-19-2008, 08:32 AM
Gripen is the better buy.

F-35 is a bureaucratic mess. If you need an aircraft now or within 3 years, the F-35 will likely not be available in numbers until 2012 at least, provided it isn't axed before then.

BAG.LordDante
05-19-2008, 08:35 AM
My SAAB 95 Aero Rocks !Dude http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

VW-IceFire
05-19-2008, 08:38 AM
Been following this debate a fair bit. Saab has made a very good case of the Gripen and from what I have read from the experts its a superb multi-role fighter. The F-35 isn't quite as well proven but again, according to the experts, the F-35 is a superb aircraft and if it forgoes the stealth capabilities actually has a huge carrying capacity.

It'll be interesting to see which way it goes and what factors come into play. Economics is going to be huge. I'd kinda like to see SAAB win this one as they haven't had many export customers with the Gripen but it seems like an excellent plane. Also it'll depend on how quickly they want them...the Gripen will probably be available before the F-35...there are so many F-35 customers lined up.

Deedsundone
05-19-2008, 09:43 AM
The F-35 is no good....in BF2,so I say,GO GRIPEN GO GRIPEN GO GO GO!That I´m a Swede has nothing to do with it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ViktorViktor
05-19-2008, 11:13 AM
How important is it that Norway and the U.S are members of NATO while Sweden is not ?

(Sweden has proposed, by the way, that Norway and Sweden enter into a military cooperative in which they would pool/standardized their equipment in order to get the most mileage out of their weaponry. I think the other north European lands were also invited to join as well.)

JG53Frankyboy
05-19-2008, 11:19 AM
chechs and hungarians are also NATO members - i doubt integrating Gripen avionics to NATO standarts would cause any proplems.........

Friendly_flyer
05-19-2008, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by LovroSL:
Didnt norway finance the JSF a bit? (or was that denmark?)

Yeah, Norway has poured millions and millions of oil Crowns into the JSF project. The idea was that paying for the development would in return result in sub-contracts. These have failed to materialize, to the extent that the Norwegian arms commission, which traditionally have been Lockeed-Martins lapdogs through and through, have gone to the extraordinary step of at least pretending they are considering another plane. Most Norwegian experts are of the opinion that the "closed door" commission composed of people with very close ties to the US arms industry, are doing this just to rattle the L.M cage, not because they actually consider buying another plane.

Summary of the two types:

The JSF is first of all an attack-plane, and the better one in that role. Since most active missions these days seem to be supporting ground operations on far-away sandy places, the JSF is may be a good solution. The Grippen is more of an all-rounder, and considering it's going to be Norways only fighter, is probably the better fighter from a national point of view. Grippen is built in Sweden, right beside Norway. Sub-contracts and repairs will probably be easy. The JSF is bigger and has stealth design, but is also more complicated and probably more prone to technical problems, but the design is newer and will probably outlast the Grippen.

Most important is the political implications: Will Norway's traditionally extremely pro-American defence establishment dare to jeopardize the close bonds to the US by actually buying a non-US plane?

Personally, I think the Grippen is the better choice, at least it looks better.