Are gripens good?

>>32362785
No, people use them for a laugh

It's the Rafael's less competent sibling. Like how Venus is always the worse Williams sister.

>>32362800
Good. The indomies are getting it, and Singapore is getting F35s late game.

>>32362814
Hopefully USA will let us buy the EA6. We don't have much SEAD capabilities,, I think.

>>32362804
Yet you'd still fuck Maria Sharapova before either Serena or Venus

>>32362827
What's her jet equivalent?

>>32362785
If you have no domestic fighter and not enough $$$ for Eurofighters, F-16s and Sukhois you get Gripens.

>>32362837
A6 intruder ? I guess ?

>>32362838
Can't remember where, but apparently F35s are somehow cheaper than grips.
Dragon029 please turn up

>>32362832
I guess. Serena has the hugest chest on the.court, through. Most female tennis players are booblets.

File: e54wrtg.jpg (54KB, 504x657px)

54KB, 504x657px

>>32362841
Price wise it's far closer to a J-10 than to a F-35.

>>32362850
Apparently not, due to the maintenance or some shit. Sorry, I really can't cite this, because I'm not very familiar.

>>32362859
It's a one engine jet from Scandinavia, maintenance cant be that horrible - after all people still buy fuck-huge Russian jets.

Mil purchases have a lot to do with politics. If you don't want to seem too aligned with Russia(SU/Flanker) or USA(F35), you get the Gripen, or the Kork fighter.

https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/275/#more-275


Seems like good info

>>32362896
Is the F35 really less maneuverable than the Gripen?

File: F-35 vs gripen.png (57KB, 653x432px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 653x432px

>>32362902
Absofuckinglutely it is.

File: photo128.jpg (69KB, 800x600px)

69KB, 800x600px

>>32362785
I like them...

>>32362947
Feel like that may be a bit misleading.

The f-35 stats are taken at max loaded weight, while the gripen is ambiguous (might be clean)

>>32362859
>due to the maintenance or some shit.
Like the specific storage, the dozens of engineers or the exorbitant high-tech spare pieces? That's the F35 mate.

>>32362947
>High wing loading supposedly equals high manoeuvrability

You dense idiot, that isn't even remotely the same. If you wanted to compare the two, you could say a high wing loading at least would decrease the manoeuvrability.

>>32362804

>It's the Rafael's less competent sibling.

At least Gripen has a BVR missile.

File: 1468016487863.jpg (102KB, 1024x683px)

102KB, 1024x683px

>>32363005
>Thinking I said high wing loading means high manuverability

"Is the F-35 less manuverable than the gripen?"

"Absolutely"

>>32362859
>I really can't cite this
because actually you shill for L-M

File: 575775.png (432KB, 600x460px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 600x460px

>>32362785
Better than F-35s, and this is not difficult desu.

>>32363042
I wish I was lol. Seems like a fun job.

>>32362785

My understanding is that they're the most affordable option for air forces that are trying to upgrade to Gen 4.5 aircraft.

>>32363050
>Better than F-35s
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

File: Brazilian Soldier on WWII.jpg (144KB, 640x837px)

144KB, 640x837px

>>32363111
The next Red Flags will interesting to follow.

>>32362850

I believe that one of the issues on /k/ with the Gripen is that we get its fans touting the technology of the 2016 Gripen NG, but pointing at the cost of the Gripen C in year ~2000 USD as its cost. Which is a teensy bit misleading.

>>32362841
>Can't remember where, but apparently F35s are somehow cheaper than grips.

It's bullshit

>>32363234
>>32362841
Maybe cheaper in personnel costs. Possibly SOME forms of maintenance.

F-35s are by no means cheap.

Emperor Trump already wants to axe it, I only love him more.

>>32363360
What's the replacement ? He's not going to axe it, since continuing it will only make it cheaper per plane, during mass production.

>>32363400
Nothing. He's just a saabcuck who needs to suck more somalis off

File: shut it down.jpg (25KB, 480x480px)

25KB, 480x480px

>>32362785
>tfw my country couldn't afford the Su-35 so it had to get this fucking cuckplane
End my life lads.

File: 7180703457_be69e4d585_b.jpg (119KB, 1024x768px)

119KB, 1024x768px

>>32362785
Its a question of perspective.

For us in South Africa, its the beez kneez

For someone who has more money and access to controlled platforms (ie: NATO aligned, or slav-hungry nations) then not so much

I thank god every single day that we bought them over the Rafael, in the recent financial crisis our military budgets got slashed, now we can only fly enough hours to keep 14 pilots on 100+ hours per year (out of 26 available Gripen).

If we had to run anything more expensive we would no longer have a viable fighter program.

Also, SAAB has been pretty bro-teir, when we introduced the A-darter missile, SAAB covered all the integration costs

File: 7365929236_2dd15edde4_b.jpg (194KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1024x768px

>>32363623
>tfw the SAAF had to teach the Swedish AF how to do air-to-air refueling

>>32363586
Your country must be a huge shithole if you prefer a slav meme to a reliable euro tool.

File: kc_390_prq_01.jpg (115KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1200x800px

>>32363623
>>32363635
SAAB is doing some really nice deals really.

The thing with them is that they just want to sell their shit with no political cost. There is no" this for that" kind of deal.

Though they are thinking in buying some of our cargo planes without we even trying to force them to do it so AND want to make more partnership for missiles n' sheeeit.

God bless those cucked beta vikings.

>>32363655
You are the only tool aroung here, brah.

File: 1481749995137.png (175KB, 269x390px)

175KB, 269x390px

>>32362785
Yeah they're great gen 4.5 fighters, which in 2016 is about as useful as creating a great full length straight pull bolt action rifle. The only reason you see them shilled so much is because of desperate Swedish cucks knowing it's the last aircraft their dying aircraft industry will ever develope and dirty third worlders trying to look tough with their banana armies.

>>32363623
>If we had to run anything more expensive we would no longer have a viable fighter program.

Why does SA need jet fighters vs. a mix of counterinsurgency aircraft and helicopters? Are they bought for dickwaving like Egypt buys F-16s they don't need? I'm not getting why an impoverished country needs to buy jet fighters over other military equipment? Please enlighten.

File: 1468955032675.png (103KB, 745x1173px)

103KB, 745x1173px

>>32363623
>>32362804
>Rafael
>Rafael
>Fucking Rafael

File: MassChopperFlypast.jpg (27KB, 1023x603px)

27KB, 1023x603px

>>32363693
South Africa is not "impoverished" by 3rd world standards.

We actually have too much money, most of our problem is that blacks cant into administration, so it gets squandered.

For perspective, our education budget is bigger than the education budget of all 6 of our neighbors combined, or that our Government has built in the region of ~3 million houses (for free) in the last decade.

If they spent it properly we would be more like a black Chile than, well, South Africa.

The answer as to "why" is quite a long one. But basically, after Apartheid we had a fucken YUGE brute of a military and no one to use it on.

So the idea was to shift to a small high-tech military, hence the idea was to get rid of our 70+ Mirages and 60+ Impala trainers and get 26 Gripen + 26 (heavily upgraded) Hawk trainers

Effectively we downsized and upgraded at the same time.

As for your other question, the entire SANDF (excluding the Navy) is built around COIN and LICW (low intensity conventional warfare) and as such when you look through our inventories you will notice things like the huge number of mortars we have, but few howitzers, massive numbers (realitivly) of MRAPs and IFV's but practically no tanks, or the fact that we have about ~60 helo's for an army of only 50K which is out of proportion in comparison to other small 3rd world militaries.

Frankly, apart from new Medium-lift fixed-wing, what does the SANDF need?

From what I've read I have really come to like the Gripen and think it's actually a great fighter.

Performance-wise it's a bit like a little brother to a Rafale or Eurofighter.
It has data link and sharing and a very low radar cross section for a non-stealth plane (I think I've read about 0.1 m2 or something). It can fire the newest Meteor AA missile and has AESA radar.

Even though the Gripen NG is not that cheap to buy, they are impressively cheap to maintain and operate and require very little personel and can take of from normal roads.

As I see it this all means that while a single Gripen is not on par with the best fighters out there it is still a very sensible choice since that for every Eurofighter or F-35 you could effectively be flying you can have about 3-4 Gripens for the same costs.

>>32363779
>our education budget is bigger than the education budget of all 6 of our neighbors combined
But anon.
Yuor neighbours are like Zimbabue, Botsuana, Namibia and god knows what else.

You cant compare yourself to them.

>>32363828
my point being, we are spending huge ammounts of money on social programs.

We are well beyond the point of diminishing returns.
>sorry Sipho, you dont get school lunches today
>your local ANC cadre squandered that budget
>and the white men want fighter jets

>>32363828
>Yuor
>Zimbabue
>Botsuana
So which neighboring country are you from?

>>32363855
Frankly, at this point Zimbabwe is such a non-country you can call it whatever you want and still be correct

>>32362841
>Can't remember where, but apparently F35s are somehow cheaper than grips.
>Dragon029 please turn up
I've never said that; my position is that the F-35 just isn't that much more to justify going with the Gripen (assuming your budget isn't that small that you can't afford a single squadron of F-35s).

Gripen E/F flyaway costs are hard to pin down / are unknown to me, but Brazil bought 36 for $5.5 billion, which puts their APUC at $153 million each. By comparison an F-35A's APUC is about $200 million. APUC and flyaway costs aren't proportional though (eg, I think it's safe to assume that more of the F-35's $200m goes towards support equipment than with the Gripen E/F), so I'd expect a Brazilian Gripen E/F to cost roughly $70m flyaway.

Sweden's paying less for their Gripen E/Fs, but they're recycling parts of their old fleet and their costs are considerably harder to track down. When Switzerland makes an order we'll hopefully get another usable data point.

>>32363855
Is Brazil a neighbour country?

>>32363851
Im telling you, the apparthaid should come back in full force if you want to thrive.

I remember a video of a couple that lost its daughter to a pack of niggers that killed her, and they said they had no hatred against them because "they didnt knew better".

Bunch of pussies. Should be killed by fire squad.

>>32363876
>I remember a video of a couple that lost its daughter to a pack of niggers that killed her, and they said they had no hatred against them because "they didnt knew better".
>Bunch of pussies. Should be killed by fire squad.

That was an American couple.

>>32363828
>Botswana
>poor

who's the nigger here?

>>32364003
The one with black eye and dark skin.

>>32362785
>Are gripens good?
depends, if they put the wartime ballards on that let it turn on a dime, then probably.

Still pretty useless with that -single- smogged EU-approved low-emissions jet engine

>>32363014
What is meteor?

>>32363875
Brazilians also got ToT.

File: FA18G Growler (2).jpg (784KB, 4256x2832px)

784KB, 4256x2832px

>>32362827
The A6 and EA6 haven't been in production since 1990. If a nation wants to buy a SEAD aircraft from the U.S., it'll be the EA18G.

I really hate delta wing designs with canards.

File: JAS39 Gripen Saab.jpg (424KB, 1654x1170px)

424KB, 1654x1170px

>>32364077
The Meteor has yet to be fully integrated with the Rafale. Even when it is, it'll be a less advanced version lacking two way data-linking.

Gripen makes sense for those nations looking for an inexpensive modern defensively oriented light-fighter. Not unlike the role the F5 over the past three decades.

File: should I fall for this bait.jpg (24KB, 512x384px)

24KB, 512x384px

>>32364332

>>32364372
Not even that anon but
>opinions are bait
You should feel both ashamed and retarded.

File: bait.jpg (74KB, 371x367px)

74KB, 371x367px

>>32364450

>>32364346
>it'll be a less advanced version lacking two way data-linking.
From what I understand it's a deliberate choice, for tactical reason. Not sure if one is better then the other.

>>32362785
Gripens are great for small nations or nations with limited Air Force budgets. Saab are very willing to enter beneficial deals (maintenance contracts, weapons integration, tech transfer, licensed production etc) to close contracts.
Couple this with a low running cost, and your nation can operate a capable, high-tech multirole fighter without breaking the bank.


But if you're a large nation or nation with a large Air Force budget, it's better to look at the more expensive alternatives like the Rafale, Eurofighter, Su-27/30, Su-50 (lel) and F-35.

>>32365022

No, it is absolutely inferior. There is no "oh it's for a tacticool reasoning" get out clause in this instance to try and damage control the Rafale's shortcomings.

Two way is entirely, and in every way, superior to one way, because it can do both. But the Rafale will be unable to use the advantages of two-way, which are fucking enormous with such long range powerful missiles. Same reason why F-35 has two-way for both Meteor and AIM-120D.

>>32365115
If it's so superior, why chose the other option? It's not like if it was a futuristic technology...

File: lex.jpg (26KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x450px

>>32365022

>>32363623
They hands down have the best tech xfer of any other aircraft.

You can customize the shit out of the thing.

Honestly it's the only fighter that makes sense if you can't afford 5th gen.

>>32365358

Because, despite what Rafale fanboys like to believe, the Rafale is not some god tier plane that always has the best of everything. It only got a one way datalink either because France was incapable of creating it when they made it, rushed past it to get to the market first, because it was too expensive or because they thought it wouldn't be the way weapons went and then had a big shock when they did. The reason of "because one way is maybe better in some ways" is completely incorrect, and has zero basis in facts. It's a desperate attempt at damage control.

Essentially, it doesn't have the computational networking to pull it off. Datalinks aren't just small add ons, they are plane defining concepts that matter throughout the entire design. Information is survival in modern skies, thats why the Gripen, the F-35 and the Typhoon all went for them.

> It's not like if it was a futuristic technology...

Except it is. Modern datalinks from modern platforms to modern munitions are wtf levels of complicated.

>>32363400
>What's the replacement ?

You really thought he'd think that far ahead?

But hey, the public loves the A10, so he'll probably just order another batch of those. Won't be his ass that fries when/if that turns out to be about as clever as sending Stukas to dogfight Sabres.

>>32366339
hey, when you can sucessfuly dogfight Sabres in Kukuruznik...

>>32362785
For 2016, it's pretty subpar.

>>32365928
So they had access to this "essential" technology from the beginning (they build the Meteor), but they chose to not integrate it?
I wouldn't be so surprised though, they're military after all.

>>32366421

The Meteor missile development has a long history with the involvement of many governments and companies (many of which have been consolidated into what is now MBDA). It was initiated in 1994 by the UK, with Germany soon joining with major input on the project as a Eurofighter weapon, Sweden & Italy were then involved around the time the bid was finalised, with France only joining in 1999.

>>32366421

Rafale predates Meteor by more than the Gripen, F-35 or (what became after time) the end result Typhoon. Presumably France didn't think the future that far ahead.

Also, France isn't the one who "build the Meteor", or even designed it. It's mostly a British missile, up to 80% at some points of development, and remains majority British at point of final design. France only contributes around 12% of the munition.

>>32362785
It works fine at the right price and does not kill you with upkeep costs. It is the only reasonable option for the vast majority of countries since the Russian aircraft are no good anymore.

>>32366524
It matches with the development of the eurotriangles. That's crazy that they did not consider it. I should search more about this one way/two way datalink, because honestly it sounds like an Iphone tier technology for an industry who possesses the knowledge (and builds it...).

>>32366708

> because honestly it sounds like an Iphone tier technology for an industry who possesses the knowledge (and builds it...).

It's really not. Two-way datalinks are fucking difficult to create. The information streaming alone is incredibly complex, because it's essentially streaming fucktons of top end information from a god damn missile back to a fighter jet moving at god knows what speed, however far away, and has to do it while constantly moving further off.

Two-Way datalinks basically feed everything the missile sees into the sensor fusion of the plane, limited or otherwise. The plane has to be set up at its baseline code to accept this additional feed, collate it with everything that every other sensor is telling it and then display it for the pilot. That is brain meltingly complicated to do, and is why so very few planes have it.

>>32366781

>fucking difficult
>fucktons of top end information >god knows what speed
>brain meltingly complicated
You sound like a gigantic ass. Seriously, stop trying to hide you ignorance by cursing and buzzwords.

>>32367110

Then go program it for the Rafale if it's so damn easy.

Fact is, the plane lacks the capability. For WHATEVER reason. It's an enormously complicated system that offers planes lots of options in air-to-air confrontations, and to try to argue otherwise is either absolute damage control out of being butthurt that your favorite plane doesn't have it or utter ignorance out of sheer stubborness.

>>32362785
Gripen vs HAL Tejas. Ceteris paribus, who wins?

>>32363144

Didn't the F35 already rip shit up at Green Flag and Northern Lightning?

>>32367491
Im not aware of this.
It would not be a surprise since the F404 is underpowered for all that weight desu.

>>32367439
HAL has a problem with its engine.

>>32367364
>Then go program it for the Rafale if it's so damn easy.

You got it all wrong. I never meant to say that the technology is easy. I meant to say that you have no idea what you're talking about, which is evident by your use of too much buzzwords and middle-school-child level of cursing. If you had actual knowledge of the technical difficulties involved in making two-way data-links, then you would have provided something more substantial, like graphs, links, pdf...etc. Otherwise, stop pulling stuff out of your ass and then getting angry when someone calls you out on your bullshit.

>>32363623
>fly enough hours to keep 14 pilots on 100+ hours per year
Why is your country less well off than Singapore ?

>>32367639

http://www.eglin.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/934921/lightning-strikes-at-largest-f-35a-deployment

Just one article there are plenty others for Northern Lightning and Green Flag.

>>32364317
But it's expensive.
The point is to get an aircraft second hand, that no one wants anymore, so as to cut costs, but still get a decent EA aircraft. I don't think we have any EA aircraft, and as such, should get one to have air dominance.

>>32368010
There is no mention of Gripen fighting the T-35 in that article.

>>32367689

He's not wrong though. Two-Way Datalinks are part of the reason why the development of radars for the three planes we know use it took longer, because you've got to work in a new transmission source from multiple missiles in the air.

If it was easy, Rafale woulda done it already, the general assumption is that the plane is incapable of it, which given its generally weak radar and processing power, would make sense.

There's no need for you to get butthurt, he layered it on a bit thick, but going all "PROOFS!" because a plane you like got called on not having a critical bit of technology for the Meteor or AMRAAM-D is a little bit desperate. You didn't "call" him on anything. If anything, it's up to you to show proof given you're the one that originally stated "one-way datalink has its own advantages", which it doesn't. So before getting all uppity and arrogant, try showing some proof for your own statement first.

>>32368060
Not to mention Growers are non-export, so they aren't exactly something you can just buy.

>>32370952
The US exported them to Australia

>>32370960
With special approval. It's a policy, not a wizard's curse, they can make exceptions.

>>32363855
Lesotho

>>32364317
>wanting a bug for anything ever

Just no. The only reason Canadacs purchase makes sense is because the F-35 is a pile of shit.

>>32363400
I want more F-22As senpai

File: drumph f35.png (26KB, 733x202px)

26KB, 733x202px

>>32363400
Oh and also

>>32372475
Payload a shit.

>>32373292
Not with the wing hardpoints senpai

>>32373317
Waste of stealth.

>>32373420
Can't they be jettisoned when they're done?
Can't the fucker reach supercruise on the deck?

Can't it jam enemy SAMs?

>>32373492
Cost per hour is bad. Might as well use A10s or something else to use as a bomb truck

>>32373510
bu-bu-but all those LockMart jobs in 48 states that depend on USAF getting as many F-35 Lemon IIs as possible!

>>32373510
Don't mind >>32373519
, the saab shill