Why buy this when the F-16 exists?

Nothing wrong with the Gripen E tho.

File: raven_S.jpg (81KB, 374x370px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 374x370px

>>34262983
You get a better radar and the ability to use the best BVR missile currently fielded.
Also, you can pretend you are not the butt bitch of the USA when flying the gripen even if you need to be in the US good graces since the Gripen E runs on US designed engines.
Also good enough to deal with the slavshit that is currently fielded.

>>34262983
do you have some GRIPES with this aircraft eheheheh

File: 15129174231fcb5b5f53c386ac42c33d.jpg (27KB, 500x474px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x474px

Because if you want an F-16 with matching capability as the Gripen E you'd have to put up with the cancer tumours on the block 60.

>>34263324
Gripen doesn't even match up to an old Block 52 though.

File: greipen_e_weapon_2340_modif.jpg (366KB, 2340x1656px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 2340x1656px

>>34263343
>Block 52
Maybe Gripen A/B but Gripen E/F is far superior to the old 52s

File: KindergartenCop.jpg (47KB, 625x349px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 625x349px

>>34263324
I think they look kinda cool

>>34263191
It would have worked better if you had told him to stop GRIPEN about it.

>>34263324
Does the USAF fly their F16s with conformal tanks ever?

>F16 from Ikea that got the wings put on backwards

>>34262983
The main thing that keeps the Gripen back is partly that they have spent a lot of time on using stanag systems when it already had superior systems and also that it was originally designed for defensive counter-air.

This means that it doesn't do things that for instance US aircraft are designed to do as well. For instance, US aircraft need to have very long range, whereas defending swedish air space gripen doesn't need to fly as far. The US needs their aircraft to drop large amounts of ordnance, so large payload and all it entails are needed, whereas the gripen only "needs" either air-to-air missiles or perhaps 2 ASMs. The US has a huge logistic chain to rely on, and thus maintainability is secondary, whereas gripen is expected to be able to perform even with very limited personell and infrastructure to support it.

Had a chance to talk to some technicians at Farnborough, the swedish team brought 2 technicians and managed very well, whereas comperable aircraft had many times that and didnt manage as well. Coincidental perhaps, i don't know.

>>34262983
Lower maintenance and rough field use. Depending on your air doctrine, the lower performance may be a worthwhile trade off. Probably lower operating costs as well.

>>34262983
>additional pylons

>>34262983
it doesn't have two engines or thrust vectoring. to make matters worse, Brazilians are buying them.

File: IMG_5443.jpg (338KB, 2736x1824px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 2736x1824px

Like half of the south african inventory.

File: IMG_6175.jpg (285KB, 2736x1824px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 2736x1824px

flares

>>34265453
USAF has no conformal tanks for their Vipers. Only the middle east has conformal tanks.

>>34265453
They don't want the added cost and maintenance time for a fighter actively in the process of being replaced.

File: Gripen-vs-F-16.jpg (139KB, 1150x563px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1150x563px

>>34264027
Grip A/B didn't even have the range or payload of an old 50, let alone a 60

>>34262983
The Gripen E exists for those nations that need fighters jets but don't wanna enslave themselves to the US foreign policies just to be able to have an airforce.

>>34266991
by that logic, is the C-17 the best fighter ever built?

File: -k The South Korean acquisition of German Swedish mad Weapons 4chan.png (3MB, 1629x1460px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1629x1460px

>>34264027
>Taurus KEPD 350

>>34263123
>US designed engines.

Source, Gripen is a Swedish plane.

>>34267363
Using a License built GE F404.

>>34267375

My bad, it's the old gripen which has Swedish motors.

>>34267395
Theyre license built, but Sweden has pretty much always used other engines as base. It would be pretty stupid to develop one on your own (its very expensive) when probably better ones are available.

>>34267468

Gripen 39 have a Volvo motor, the Volvo Aero RM12 , which is Swedish designed.

>>34267517
The RM12 is a license built, modified GE 404 built by Volvo Aero.

>>34267656
And to add further, the RM8 was a modified and license built Pratt and Whitney engine, and the RM6 was a Rolls Royce Avon engine.

File: 1496651265366.jpg (10KB, 176x287px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 176x287px

>>34266800
>two engines or thrust
Which is good as thrust vectoring is worse than useless in this day and age.

>brazil
Could be worse, think of the poor T-50 that is burdened by thrust vectoring AND being sponsored by fucking poos.

>>34266924
>Only the middle east has conformal tanks.

Poles, Greeks, and Singaporeans have CFTs too.

And Turkey depending on whether you lump them in the ME or not

>>34262983
It does have TIDLS which is a far superior datalink compared to the Link 16 which Gripen also has for NATO compatibility.

>>34262983
One reason for buying JAS Gripen instead of F-16 is that USA has a history of being very unreliable trade partner for foreign customers. When you are negotiating about weapon system purchase, you negotiate with the US ministry of defense, not the manufacturer. This means that negotiation results depend on current policy, and US policy may change radically every 4-8 years.

That is, a customer may notice that soon after US presidential election, their supply chain of spare parts and on-board weapons is cut off, and there are no updates to flight-control software.