just fleshing out what is painfully obvious. the F-35 could turn into a world beating airplane. it might sweep the skies of enemy opposition and we could still lose the war because we have too few troops operating antiquated vehicles.
in that light i'm looking for an alternative. i only see two viable contenders the Super Hornet (pick number 1) and the Gripen (pick number 2).
The Gripen is a pretty affordable fighter as-is... It would be interesting to see its production ramped up to F-16 levels with the accompanying economies of scale.
That's why countries that have F-16's now, are looking to upgrade and with the economy as it is right now. I am betting that most cash strapped countries will opt for the Gripen over the Super Hornet, Rafael or Typhoon. Give you an example, Thailand may consider trading their F-16s for Gripens
The Super Hornet is better than the Gripen in terms of overall effectiveness and carrying out the missions that are conventionally done in most wars. The Gripen is what I would buy if I was a small country looking for the the most aircraft with the best bang at the cheapest price. The difference in price between the Gripen and Super Hornet isn't all that much as far as fighters go.
The Gripen's primary advantage is that it can operate using really short runways or even ordinary roads and that it's got better aerodynamic performance in terms of agility.
The Super Hornet's primary advantages are a heavier payload and superior electronics (AESA, multi-band jamming, other things). I'm still curious about the Super Hornet's classified capability upgrades that the Navy is funding though.
All in all, both are great aircraft and I think many countries will be looking to these two if the F-35 collapses and the market for fighter jets opens up.
That's why I see the Gripen has a market for Air forces that are small to medium size and want the most out of an Aircraft with the best bang for the buck. Countries like Thailand are ripe for a full Gripen use, if they decided to drop the F-16 for the Gripen. Even countries such as the Philippines and Mexico if they get their act together could benefit from the Gripen NG. Which is why the Gripen needs to Market itself to small to Medium Size Air Forces.
The Super Hornet, is perfect for Medium to Large Air forces such as the Royal Australian Air force and possibly Brazil and Canada as well. I think that with the Super Hornet, you can incorporate all the F-35 tech into a low cost super hornet international road map.
IMO, the Gripen is geared mostly to small to medium Air forces who want the most out of an Aircraft with the best bang for the buck. While the Super Hornet is geared more towards to a Medium to Large Air forces who want an aircraft that can carry more and have the top of the line electronic suite. Which is why the Gripen and super hornet are the top alternatives to the F-35, depending upon the size of your Air force.
Of course Andrew, Nick, we can ad that Grippen is much more tough then Super Hornet. His resistance to bad weather, low maintenance price and time put him in first place for many Air Forces. It had a very strong position in fighter contest couple of years ago in Poland.
The problem here is that the Gripen is trying to fit into a medium to large air force when the super hornet is more suited to medium to large air forces. Where as the Gripen is more suited to small air forces that want more bang for their buck.
And that's maybe is his main advantage. Armed Forces don't buy planes, politics do that. And when you will tell them that they can pay less and rest of cash take to home for new limo or vacation you have a winner. :D
I think that economy of JAS-39 will win some good contracts in near future not only in small forces but also in medium ones. Buy more for less.
It depends upon the size of the air force and the country. Some countries want a combat proven design such as the Super Hornet and the Growler. While other countries want a Compact multi Role Fighter that won't break the bank account. I think the Gripen would be suited for small to medium air forces that want more bang for their buck. While medium to Large Air forces want combat proven designs. For example, a Gripen would be perfect for countries such as Thailand, The Philippines, Mexico and Columbia. The Super hornet suits very well for Australia, Canada and possibly Brazil.
Gripens are useless for actual war. its a patrol fighter designed by a neutral country for defensive warfare with an emphasis on being cheap to produce.
If you want to bee only agressor then Grippen maybe indeed is not for you. And he was design not by "neutral" country but country with long and very successful aviation history. Sweden invest a lot of time, money and manpower to be self-sufficient in terms od own defense. And they are now one of the most succesful high quality weapons producent on the world. If you think that "actual war" is only war of attack, attack and again attack without any way to defend own nation, then true. Grippen is "uselss".
A lot of Gripen posts lately...
ReplyDeleteShould we read something into this?
just fleshing out what is painfully obvious. the F-35 could turn into a world beating airplane. it might sweep the skies of enemy opposition and we could still lose the war because we have too few troops operating antiquated vehicles.
Deletein that light i'm looking for an alternative. i only see two viable contenders the Super Hornet (pick number 1) and the Gripen (pick number 2).
If your cash strapped, then the gripen is your choice. If you have the cash, then the Super hornet is the choice.
DeleteThe Gripen is a pretty affordable fighter as-is... It would be interesting to see its production ramped up to F-16 levels with the accompanying economies of scale.
DeleteThat's why countries that have F-16's now, are looking to upgrade and with the economy as it is right now. I am betting that most cash strapped countries will opt for the Gripen over the Super Hornet, Rafael or Typhoon. Give you an example, Thailand may consider trading their F-16s for Gripens
DeleteThe Super Hornet is better than the Gripen in terms of overall effectiveness and carrying out the missions that are conventionally done in most wars. The Gripen is what I would buy if I was a small country looking for the the most aircraft with the best bang at the cheapest price. The difference in price between the Gripen and Super Hornet isn't all that much as far as fighters go.
DeleteThe Gripen's primary advantage is that it can operate using really short runways or even ordinary roads and that it's got better aerodynamic performance in terms of agility.
The Super Hornet's primary advantages are a heavier payload and superior electronics (AESA, multi-band jamming, other things). I'm still curious about the Super Hornet's classified capability upgrades that the Navy is funding though.
All in all, both are great aircraft and I think many countries will be looking to these two if the F-35 collapses and the market for fighter jets opens up.
That's why I see the Gripen has a market for Air forces that are small to medium size and want the most out of an Aircraft with the best bang for the buck. Countries like Thailand are ripe for a full Gripen use, if they decided to drop the F-16 for the Gripen. Even countries such as the Philippines and Mexico if they get their act together could benefit from the Gripen NG. Which is why the Gripen needs to Market itself to small to Medium Size Air Forces.
DeleteThe Super Hornet, is perfect for Medium to Large Air forces such as the Royal Australian Air force and possibly Brazil and Canada as well. I think that with the Super Hornet, you can incorporate all the F-35 tech into a low cost super hornet international road map.
IMO, the Gripen is geared mostly to small to medium Air forces who want the most out of an Aircraft with the best bang for the buck. While the Super Hornet is geared more towards to a Medium to Large Air forces who want an aircraft that can carry more and have the top of the line electronic suite. Which is why the Gripen and super hornet are the top alternatives to the F-35, depending upon the size of your Air force.
Nicky, everything you post is painful to read. You just repeat yourself over and over again.
DeleteOf course Andrew, Nick, we can ad that Grippen is much more tough then Super Hornet. His resistance to bad weather, low maintenance price and time put him in first place for many Air Forces. It had a very strong position in fighter contest couple of years ago in Poland.
DeleteThe problem here is that the Gripen is trying to fit into a medium to large air force when the super hornet is more suited to medium to large air forces. Where as the Gripen is more suited to small air forces that want more bang for their buck.
DeleteAnd that's maybe is his main advantage. Armed Forces don't buy planes, politics do that. And when you will tell them that they can pay less and rest of cash take to home for new limo or vacation you have a winner. :D
DeleteI think that economy of JAS-39 will win some good contracts in near future not only in small forces but also in medium ones. Buy more for less.
It depends upon the size of the air force and the country. Some countries want a combat proven design such as the Super Hornet and the Growler. While other countries want a Compact multi Role Fighter that won't break the bank account. I think the Gripen would be suited for small to medium air forces that want more bang for their buck. While medium to Large Air forces want combat proven designs. For example, a Gripen would be perfect for countries such as Thailand, The Philippines, Mexico and Columbia. The Super hornet suits very well for Australia, Canada and possibly Brazil.
DeleteGripens are useless for actual war. its a patrol fighter designed by a neutral country for defensive warfare with an emphasis on being cheap to produce.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to bee only agressor then Grippen maybe indeed is not for you. And he was design not by "neutral" country but country with long and very successful aviation history. Sweden invest a lot of time, money and manpower to be self-sufficient in terms od own defense. And they are now one of the most succesful high quality weapons producent on the world. If you think that "actual war" is only war of attack, attack and again attack without any way to defend own nation, then true. Grippen is "uselss".
Delete