Gripen - Red Flag

[swerve]

Grand Danois -

Snap!

 

[Grand Danois]

Grand Danois -

Snap!

I was about to include this in my prev post, but DT went down. Here it goes wrt ROEs: A real world BVR shot:

How Dutch F-16AMs shot down a Mig-29

...

"At 19.30hr local time four F-16AMs took off from here for a fighter escort mission to protect one of the first NATO strike packages. After an in-flight refuelling over the Adriatic Sea, the flight crossed over Albania into Serbia. Upon entering Serbian airspace, they were informed by AWACS that three MiG-29 aircraft had taken off from an air base near Belgrade," Col Abma said.

That base is understood to have been Batajnica, home of the Yugoslav Air Force's only MiG-29 unit, the 127th Fighter Aviation Squadron 'Knights'. Col Abma said: "The four F-16AMs headed out toward the threat, working to detect the MiGs on their own radars. Subsequently, one of the MiGs was picked up by all four F-16s. When within range, our flight leader fired one AMRAAM against the MiG. It was an instant hit, after a flight of 30 seconds."

The AMRAAM, credited with a speed of over 4,000km/h,would be capable of covering a distance of more than 33km in 30 seconds. According to RNLAF personnel at Amendola, the head-on missile intercept took place 18km from the lead F-16.

"The pilot involved visually saw a fiery explosion. At the same time, the AWACS recorded that the MiG disappeared from the scope," Col Abma said. "We have never seen the other MiG-29s, but around the same time two US F-15s shot down two of those aircraft."

Col Abma said that the rules of engagement (ROEs) for air-to-air engagements require that the target has been tracked by AWACS throughout its flight, and that four other parameters also must be met. Other RNLAF officers said that among those are a positive IFF identification and an approval from the mission commander.

...

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/kosovo/jdw990401_01_n.shtml

 

[Next_Generation]

Gripen operates in A´stans airspace, very unlikely, and me personlly would be very suprised.

duo it´s sad tho.
btw, im swedish, and im ´so trired of the genral publics opinion of the gripen program back in sweden, how can´t them see the benifits and spin offs, in these kind of programs. is for me, mystery.

but i do hope, we´ll experience Gripen in real engagements sooner or later.


i´ve been reading about the gripens in various of excerices
and for me it looks like, gripen have done very well. and have proven the critics wrong, more than one time.

and last.
it´s sad to see all the gripen vs xx all the time. for me a weaponplattform needs to be rated after the certian assignments it´s designed to do. to compare Gripen Vs F-35 is just wrong.
you need to compare A/C against the country´s specific needs not aircraft vs aircraft. maybe this is a entirely different forum..

 

[JohanGrön]

Aggressor F-15 D down in Red Flag Nellis, one dead one wounded

Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 11.30 (local time), an American two seater fighter aircraft of type F 15 D crashed at Nellis Air Force Base training grounds in Nevada, USA. The crash took place during the international Red Flag training in which Sweden is currently participating (Red Flag 08-03).

One of the two pilots were declared dead and the other was brought to Mike O'Callaghan Hospital at half past one.The crash took place around 50 miles east of Goldfield at Nellis Air Force Base training area.

The plane was a two seater F 15 D American Eagle. Both pilots belonged to the 65th Aggressor Squadron which is the acting opponents of the guest units.

The Swedish Air Force JAS 39 Gripens has not been affected by the accident.

The killed pilot was identified as Lt. Col. Thomas Bouley the 65th Aggressor Squadron commander with 20 years of service and more than 4200 hours in the F-15 Eagle, the RAF F-3 Tornado and the T-38 Talon.

The other involved pilot, a RAF exchange pilot, is in stable condition.

All aircraft units, with exception of the 64th and 65th Aggressor Squadrons, have continued flying operations. The 64th AGRS will resume flying missions Aug. 1, and the 65th AGRS will resume operations Aug. 4.

The last fatal crash that occurred during a red flag event was seven years ago when a German fighter plane crashed during the war games.

Link to the Swedish Air Forces webpage (in Swedish) :
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=41576

Link to American webpage :
(h)ttp://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=8766344

Link to Nellis webpage :
(h)ttp://www.nellis.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123108999

 

[Dalregementet]

Now we are off-topic:

Scania was lost in the 1660'ies and countless wars has tried to regain this part of the country. The Swedes has time and again perpetrated unspeakable atrocities on the local population (downright etnic cleansing)- as late as the Napoleonic wars conscripts were executed for refusing to fight other Danes.
The Swedish motive for holding on to Scania was that it is the only place there is decent agricultural land.
The Student movement in 1860 originated at the university of Lund, because the scanians this way tried to reconnect to Denmark. This connection broke in the second Slesvig war - but quite a few served in the Danish army as officers - where they were sorely needed.
In the late 19th century there was a massive emigration to - especially Copenhagen - of scanians (NOT well published): You can trace them in their surname where seemingly swedish spellings survives: Jönsson for Jensen.
There is a supressed non-violent movement in Scania today for greater independence of Stockholm. At the last election a protest movement - that has been slandered as xenofobic by the establishment - has really started to gain importance on local and national level.
You might call me crazy, but I believe it is a matter of time before some solution is found with greater independence of Scania. I don't think an independent Scanian nation has a future:
a. It is too small.
b. The massive attraction of Copenhagen is to close.
c. Sweden has swept serious issues under the carpet for so long, that when they appear on the surface they will not be able to be solved within the framework of Sweden as a nation.
d. Sweden survived the cold war by playing the USA against Russian and vice versa. This is not quite possible any more and has left a resentment in the USA against Sweden - that they have appointed Carl Bildt as foreign secretary is one stupid move: He is detested in the USA and the americans have time and again blocked his applications for important international positions. Furthermore: Sweden has been build on cheap electrical power from hydroelectric plants - now there are no more resources there for growth.
Sweden has a low productivity workforce (just take the number of sickdays) with so many social (costly benefits) that are counted as rights. When Germany get their workforce whipped into shape - and that will happen eventually - they will outcompete a Sweden that sells the same products as the German industry.
The main problem will be how to avoid violence.

If You shake Your head at my rantings, I hope You are satisfied with Your presold tickets for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the German Democratic Republic.

The "integration" of Scania into Sweden is called one of very few really "successful" ethnic cleansings in Europe. One third of Scanias original "danish" popultion fled to what is todays Denmark and Swedish families were moved in - this was more than 300 years ago. Crazy... I wont take that word into my mouth... cra... but the above was completly off topic and also mostly bull shit. That there are many bitter danes in Denmark that mourn the loss of Scania plus other Swedish provinces is nothing new in Sweden. The one thing I was most surprised over is how it affects THS judgement in military affairs in a negative way.

Very many, at least 50% of the Scania population is not from Scania, but from other Swedish provinces, like my uncle that origins from northern Sweden. So, THS - try to overcome the loss of Scania, Halland, and Blekinge, don't let that cloud your judgement in military affairs... like the Gripen fighter aircraft topic .

 

[Grand Danois]

Ths & Dalregementet, you're both off topic.

Any more responses to past Dano-Swedish rivalries in this thread will be deleted.

Thanks.

 

[Dalregementet]

Actually Denmark also had its 400 years of empire, which included Sweden.

Norway has not, and buttons can be pushed in this regard to very nationalistic Norewegians. E.g. Denmark kept Greenland/Iceland/Faroes after the Napoleonic Wars.

Inferiority/little brother complexes would be a wrong explanation. It is only used in relation to sports games, bacause there you use the most tired clichées. It is about perceptions of past glory and loss of empire.

I'd say Mary is better looking - but she is an Aussie so she doesn't count, I guess.

I just take this as a danish hybris and complex at the same time. The Kalmar Union was established in 1397 with Queen Margareta as the main driver. Sweden was not defeated nor conquered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union

Many noble families in Sweden, Denmark and Norway were intermarried and owned land in two or all three nordic countries - it was simply bad business to start a war. However, in 1521, Sweden didn´t feel comfortable with the danish mindset and went for a divorce with the danish woman. Denmark had a difficulty in grasping that they had been dumped so they started to quarrel - actually became really nasty. That was bad politics and the punishment was that Denmark lost about half it´s territory (I don't count all the ice on Greenland). Many danish is bitter over being dumped and then stripped on large territories. Some danish dream that one day they will get all this back, like THS, but that is futile.

 

[Dalregementet]

Ths & Dalregementet, you're both off topic.

Any more responses to past Dano-Swedish rivalries in this thread will be deleted.

Thanks.

I didn´t see your last post before I submitted my response.

 

[Grand Danois]

I didn´t see your last post before I submitted my response.

No worries. New posts should relate to Gripen @ Red Flag.

 

[Dalregementet]

No. I' m not saying jets like Gripen are obsolete or not good enough.

What I am saying is that the jet a nation choses has to fit the tasks that nation intends it to do.

The Gripen is fine for the environment and job it was designed for.

Funny, that all figher jets currently in service within a few years are obsolete, except then F22 and F35... All governments have made the wrong decision. Says who? Must be a very intelligent person...

I think the threat level, now and for the foreseable future is what counts, If Denmark think that they will have to have the absolutely best, why stop with F35? Why not F22 and then at least 300 of them?

 

[Dalregementet]

No worries. New posts should relate to Gripen @ Red Flag.

I know, that was why I wanted to read the posts. Then it turned out to be a Gripen bashing party that went over to Sweden bashing... I will find out more about red flag and post it here. I know people at Saab that I cant put questions to.

 

[Dalregementet]

Because you don't really understand much about aircraft.

The F-35 possesses greater thrust, a clean airframe even in operational configuration and a very sleek aerodynamic shape. It possesses an enormous amount of 'dry thrust" (more than a Gripen on afterburner) very large fuel fraction and a very light airframe considering the capabilities that it possesses.

Heavy and slow is it?

It weighs roughly the same as an F-15C, has virtually the same installed thrust, more fuel than an F-15C carrying a 600 gallon external drop tank and of course, carries it's weapons and sensors internally...

The term "supercruise" commonly means the ability to fly supersonically without using the afterburner, as I understand it. The Gripen can do this anecdotally. It was not a design requirement. Go and look at Gripen's home page and see if you can find the requirement for it.

What makes you so sure that the F-35 won't be able to then? Saab never said the Gripen would be able to "supercruise" back in it's development either.

FYI, the Gripen and Typhoon all claim "supercruise" capability in operational configuration. Rafale probably does too, given it's European rivals do and they all have the same anecdotal evidence (respected pilot x says it can) verifying this.

Big deal. The English Electric fighter in the 1950's could too. If a fighter from 50 years ago could do it, why are so few modern fighters "incapable" of doing it?

Because it's a term that is useful for marketing purposes as opposed to being a truly essential operational capability. Just like "thrust vectored" engine nozzles, a capability that hundreds of kilograms of weight to an aircraft, is useful for only one specific area of flight (post stall maneuvering) and adds a heap of expense both in acquisition and through the mechanical complexity of the systems.

The F-22 program spared no expense in designing the best air to air fighter the US could build. Hence it's "supercruise" capability, "full LO" (even down to not having a transmit capable data-link), thrust vectoring engine nozzles a massive AESA radar and only minimal attention paid to air to ground capability.

The F-35 is a multi-role fighter, designed from the outset to replace the F-16, F/A-18, Harrier and A-10C fighters. It is not "primarily" anything other than a multi-role fighter and when developed should prove more capable at air to air combat than any other fighter on the planet, bar F-22...

I saw an quite extensive evaluation of Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, F/A-18, F-16, F22 and F35. Gripen measured up quite well in that one. When it came to the "platform", it was better than F16 but not better that Super Hornet. When it came to compare the "system". Gripen was better than Super Hornet. Unfortunately, I don´t remember all the technical terms but, as said, it measured up real well on all accounts, even compared with F35. The only real issue was stealth. The evaluation was done by Saab and a US fighter aircraft manufacturer.

 

[Grand Danois]

I saw an quite extensive evaluation of Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, F/A-18, F-16, F22 and F35. Gripen measured up quite well in that one. When it came to the "platform", it was better than F16 but not better that Super Hornet. When it came to compare the "system". Gripen was better than Super Hornet. Unfortunately, I don´t remember all the technical terms but, as said, it measured up real well on all accounts, even compared with F35. The only real issue was stealth. The evaluation was done by Saab and a US fighter aircraft manufacturer.

I think the threat level, now and for the foreseable future is what counts, If Denmark think that they will have to have the absolutely best, why stop with F35? Why not F22 and then at least 300 of them?

It's not only about direct comparisons between two platforms. In the case of Denmark these factors also play a role:

General defence & foreign policy.
Partners on the operational level (doctrine, training, logistics, etc.).
Industrial partners & "offsets".
Size of budget and available manpower (this has to be considered, though not part of an official analyses)
And lastly also absolute capability.

So reducing it to buying the latest and greatest is wrong. It's about buying the most suitable jet to match the defined need.

I.e. the F-22 is not multirole, extremely expensive, not for sale, Denmarks partners won't buy it, poor opportunity for industrial partnering, etc..

A poor fit.

Should we get back to Gripen at Red Flag?

 

[JohanGrön]

Red Flag 08-3 tidbits

I know, that was why I wanted to read the posts. Then it turned out to be a Gripen bashing party that went over to Sweden bashing... I will find out more about red flag and post it here. I know people at Saab that I cant put questions to.

Dalregementet take a look at Flygvapnets web, they have an ongoing "thread" of the activities at Red Flag. They also run some explanatory posts of related topics such as telekrig.

Red Flag Nellis 2007
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/article.php?id=17838

Red Flag Alaska 2006
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/article.php?id=15546


Scooter, yes that Scooter , also did an interview for SR.
(h)ttp://www.sr.se/Norrbotten/nyheter/arkiv.asp?ProgramID=209&Max=2008-07-23&Min=2001-06-29&PeriodStart=2008-07-23&Period=2&Artikel=2212428


This might also be a worthwile read. Some bits about previous Gripen angagements in Red Flag (Alaska summer of 2006) with regard to tactical advantages of the jaktlänk (nose-cold shooters and distributed targetters/missile updaters). You will find the interesting bits of you read the whole articles.
(h)ttp://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0108/index.php?startid=16
(h)ttp://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0508/index.php?startid=40


This is how USAF do the jaktlänk (nose-hot shooter and targetter/missile updater being the same plane), not as elaborate as SwAF by far :nutkick
Look at page 4 sections 2.1 and 2.2 in the first pdf. The powerpoint slides where used for the presentation that was about simulation training.
(f)tp://ftp.rta.nato.int/PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-MSG-045/MP-MSG-045-19.pdf
(f)tp://ftp.rta.nato.int/PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-MSG-045/MP-MSG-045-19.pps


You could find this and much much more on the Gripen News thread at MP-net! Be aware that it's a 1000 posts read if you want to plugh through it in it's entirety :vamp
(h)ttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=84527&page=62


Cheers

 

[Dalregementet]

Dalregementet take a look at Flygvapnets web, they have an ongoing "thread" of the activities at Red Flag. They also run some explanatory posts of related topics such as telekrig.
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=41547
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=41539
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=41550
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=41553
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=41555
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=41558
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=41562
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=41572 (EWS)
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=41580
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=41582


Scooter, yes that Scooter , also did an interview for SR.
(h)ttp://www.sr.se/Norrbotten/nyheter/arkiv.asp?ProgramID=209&Max=2008-07-23&Min=2001-06-29&PeriodStart=2008-07-23&Period=2&Artikel=2212428


This might also be a worthwile read. Some bits about previous Gripen angagements in Red Flag (Alaska summer of 2006) with regard to tactical advantages of the jaktlänk (nose-cold shooters and distributed targetters/missile updaters). You will find the interesting bits of you read the whole articles.
(h)ttp://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0108/index.php?startid=16
(h)ttp://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0508/index.php?startid=40


This is how USAF do the jaktlänk (nose-hot shooter and targetter/missile updater being the same plane), not as elaborate as SwAF by far :nutkick
Look at page 4 sections 2.1 and 2.2 in the first pdf. The powerpoint slides where used for the presentation that was about simulation training.
(f)tp://ftp.rta.nato.int/PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-MSG-045/MP-MSG-045-19.pdf
(f)tp://ftp.rta.nato.int/PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-MSG-045/MP-MSG-045-19.pps


You could find this and much much more on the Gripen News thread at MP-net! Be aware that it's a 1000 posts read if you want to plugh through it in it's entirety :vamp
(h)ttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=84527&page=62


Cheers

Hmm - thanks! Would though be nice to get some more "official" statement and also some comments from pilots from other nations that also participated in Red Flag. Right now we only know that some exercises "went well". How did Gripen perform during all exercises?

 

[JohanGrön]

Hmm - thanks! Would though be nice to get some more "official" statement and also some comments from pilots from other nations that also participated in Red Flag. Right now we only know that some exercises "went well". How did Gripen perform during all exercises?

The official evaluation will probably be available in "Insats & Försvar".
(h)ttp://www2.mil.se/sv/Nyheter/Insats-forsvar/

It will not be that detailed though. Individual flights will only be evaluated internally I think.

The Brazilians wanted to take a closer look on the Gripen during Red Flag (Joao Spencer).
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?c=news&id=41582

-- "During two days the Swedish pilots acted as mission commanders. I was very impressed by their approach to work. They were very professional, in the choices they made and how they coped with the leadership" says Spencer.

Here's something from 2006 (Nate Graber).
(h)ttp://www.flygvapnet.mil.se/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=33254

 

[Ths]

If I may elaborate on Grand Danois.

The purpose of inviting (paying) Swedish forces to US-led exercises is to get an idea of the possibilities of foreign available technology, when competently led. Furthermore it should be from a nation, where war - even by the furthest streaches of imagination - even mine - is not a contigency to be given serious thought. This in order to ensure that the exercise opposition is not deliberately incompetent or incapable due to the fear of exposing true tactical ability. Sweden fits that bill very well

The setup of the exercise will be made so that the invited will perform well. Not so much to pander to egoes, but to test the assumptions of the exercise - generally with a build up to a critical point, where success is touch and go. Off the top of my head I can think of two historical examples;

1. An exercise in Denmark, when the Eagle was young. The Eagle was allied to begin with; but after an hour it was made hostile. The conclusion was that the airdefence of Denmark was not immediately in need of F-15 support and was not gravely influenced by the Eagle as an opponent.

2. A Red Flag with the participation of Vulcans - which to begin with was not doing well, the assumption had to be changed to normal British standard -i.e. flying so low that deployment of the undercarriage would mean taxiing. This must have given valuable information as to the capability of the successor,Tornado, when used according to the proper tactics.

Ironically: The better the Gripen performed, the less likely the Brazilian order, as the US will not allow technologically advanced weapons in South America - and has made that clear in no uncertain, but diplomatic, terms.

The Gripen is in my view not a realistic option for Denmark:

1. The need for range, as the important missions are far from Denmark - and I do not mean Afghanistan. The Baltic countries have forsaken a proper AirForce, as it is more cost effective to let them train light infantry. Air Defence is provided in turn by other Nato countries.

2. The need to operate in a Nato context - the Gripen could do that; but the F-35 has an unfair advantage by design. The F-22 is a tactical reserve to be drawn on, if the F-35 are interfered with to any noticable extend. As long as F-35 plinks enemies and clean the air to expectation, there is no need for the F-22.

3. The need for replacement of attrition losses in war. One of the huge advantages of the F-16 during the cold war was that ANG units could reinforce Danish, Norwegean, Dutch and Belgian forces without much ado.

4. The benefit of double operational lifetime. May I remind You: The competitors to F-16 (the Mirage F1 and Viggen) have both been withdrawn from serious operational use years ago. The F-16 still performs nicely - having had a facelift and a belly tuck now and then.

Finally the producers of Gripen, Taifun and Rafael are not incompetent and their politicians are not morons; but they do not have access to the engine technology which is crucial in fighter design.
The best example of a good airplane with a dubious engine is the F-14. To perform adequately it used every trick in the aerodynamic book, ending up being a maintainence nightmare.

 

[JohanGrön]

The setup of the exercise will be made so that the invited will perform well. ... Ironically: The better the Gripen performed, the less likely the Brazilian order, as the US will not allow technologically advanced weapons in South America - and has made that clear in no uncertain, but diplomatic, terms.

The setup is made deliberately easy so that Brazil will not be allowed Gripen? Or did I misunderstand your logic? Or are you recognizing the fact that they performed well on their own merits, thus negating your first assumption?

I would belive that the US regards F-18 Super Hornet and F-35 Ligthning II as technologically advanced weapons too if they regard Gripen as such. Why would US let them enter if they have an agenda for Brazil and South America?

The Gripen is in my view not a realistic option for Denmark:
1. The need for range, as the important missions are far from Denmark - and I do not mean Afghanistan. The Baltic countries have forsaken a proper AirForce, as it is more cost effective to let them train light infantry. Air Defence is provided in turn by other Nato countries.

In what way are the Gripen NG inferior in range to the other candidates?

2. The need to operate in a Nato context - the Gripen could do that; but the F-35 has an unfair advantage by design. The F-22 is a tactical reserve to be drawn on, if the F-35 are interfered with to any noticable extend. As long as F-35 plinks enemies and clean the air to expectation, there is no need for the F-22.

Isn't the very fact that Gripen performs in Red Flag proof of it beeing operational in a NATO context? What else needs to be demonstrated?

4. The benefit of double operational lifetime. May I remind You: The competitors to F-16 (the Mirage F1 and Viggen) have both been withdrawn from serious operational use years ago. The F-16 still performs nicely - having had a facelift and a belly tuck now and then.

Kind of self fulfilling don't you think? The one that's selected gains momentum and are in for long production runs ...

Finally the producers of Gripen, Taifun and Rafael are not incompetent and their politicians are not morons; but they do not have access to the engine technology which is crucial in fighter design.

I probably missed the criteria that a single manufacturer should supply all of the parts of the system. Is that a RDAF showstopper for Gripen? GE is not half bad at engine technology AFAIK.


Cheers

 

[Vivendi]

Finally the producers of Gripen, Taifun and Rafael are not incompetent and their politicians are not morons; but they do not have access to the engine technology which is crucial in fighter design.

I am not sure if I understand what you mean?
I believe that they do have access to the engine technology? For the current Gripen the engine is RM12. From Gripen.com:

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 would assume that to make these modifications they would need access to the technology?

The best example of a good airplane with a dubious engine is the F-14. To perform adequately it used every trick in the aerodynamic book, ending up being a maintainence nightmare.

Are you implying that the engine for Gripen NG (that most likely will be a Volvo-modified F414) would be a dubious engine? Could you elaborate on this?

I had the impression that the RM12 worked well for the Gripen A/D and Gripen C/D, both in terms of performance and reliability/maintainance ?

Or do you have other reasons to believe that the F414-variant for the Gripen NG would be "dubious"?



V

 

[Vivendi]

I saw an quite extensive evaluation of Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, F/A-18, F-16, F22 and F35. Gripen measured up quite well in that one. When it came to the "platform", it was better than F16 but not better that Super Hornet. When it came to compare the "system". Gripen was better than Super Hornet. Unfortunately, I don´t remember all the technical terms but, as said, it measured up real well on all accounts, even compared with F35. The only real issue was stealth. The evaluation was done by Saab and a US fighter aircraft manufacturer.

Was the evaluation done using the future Gripen NG or the current C/D version? Presumably it was the NG...?


V