So /k/,the Gripen fags are getting really annoying with their

File: 1501274973728.jpg (373KB, 700x1200px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 700x1200px

>>34726656
imo gripen f-16 is old design from the 70s its so much you can do with an old airframe

imo my ranking for fighters in 2017 is

1.pak fa/f-22
2. j-20
3.rafale
4.su 35/30/27
5.gripen
6.eurofighter
7.mig 35
8.f-15
9.f-16
10.f-35 (maybe better than 4gen aircraft but very expensive for what you get)

>>34726697
Someone post the chart that wasnt made by Rafalefag in 2012

>>34726697
Why is the F-22 not in that list, it is without a doubt the best one there.
Also, what's your criteria?

>>34726697
This is some strange bait

>>34726934
It is it shares 1st place with pak fa
My criteria is everything since these planes are multirole

File: Screenshot_20170801-230433.png (777KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 1080x1920px

>>34726832
Here you go.

>>34726697
Oh! This fucking Twat!

File: even sam hyde thinks you're gay.gif (2MB, 202x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 202x360px

>>34726697

File: image.gif (2MB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x600px

>>34726697

File: 1480521611355.jpg (27KB, 314x246px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 314x246px

>>34726697

>4.su 35/30/27
>8.f-15

Bitch, please.

Even the most vodka infused vatnik wouldn't be this retarded.

File: pottery.png (64KB, 597x432px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 597x432px

>>34729524
>>34726697

evry tiem

>>34729524
God that's hilariously inaccurate.

>>34730709
I didn't make it, brainlet. Hence the name "Screenshot"

>>34726697
Thanks for derailing this thread faggot

>>34727130
It seems to be an average Ace Combat fan, therefore retarded.

>>34730724
Defensive much? He never said YOU made it "brainlet".

File: nick-young-confused-face-300x256_nqlyaa.jpg (25KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x512px

>>34730956
>Getting mad on 4chan

>>34730709
Not compared to the first one, which is even more impressive

>>34730694
I wonder if we'll ever get a F-35E to replace the Growler.

>>34726656
THE ANSWER IS:
They're both very similar aircraft to the point where you're splitting hairs desu

The Gripen has lower maintenance costs... according to either the the Fin/Swiss Air Force if I remember correctly

>>34726697
>Flankers all lumped together as if an Su-27S and an Su-35S are even remotely similar in capability.
>Pak-Fa isn't even finished yet.
>J-20 likely isn't combat ready either.
>We also pretty much know nothing about it and yet it's somehow 2nd on your list.
>Mig-35 is the same, prototypes flying with concrete ballast instead of the Radar.
>doesn't specify what F-15.

Ima make a better list, based on AC you can actually buy and fly today.
1.F-35A (especially with 3F at the end of the year)
2.Rafale F.4 (AESA, meteor and great A2G selection, not too pricy)
3.Boeing F-15E deriviative (pricy, but has unbeatable range and payload)
4.F-16V
5.F-18E
6.EF-2000 T.3A (Rafale with less toys that costs more)
7.Su-35S (probably not suitable for many western AF though)
8.GripenC
9.Su-30
10.J-10 (not sure if you can get the C yet -has AESA-)

>>34730694
That second Rafale cost is just as bad as using early LRIP numbers for the F-35 desu.

>>34731811

>based on AC you can actually buy and fly today.
>2.Rafale F.4

LOLNO, fuck off ouiaboo

>France’s defence ministry has launched development work on the next production standard of the Dassault Rafale, designed to deliver aircraft built to the enhanced F4 level from 2025.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/france-launches-f4-standard-rafale-development-435500/

>>34726656
Make it fair

F-16 Blk 50/52+ vs Shitten

>>34732480
I meant F.3 fug.

>>34726656
BVR, gripen wins due to Meteor, WVR is a tossup if both have IRIS-T, if only gripen has IRIS-T, it probably wins.

As a bombtruck, the F-16? Fuck if i know.

>>34731821
Not really, India bought 36 Rafales for ~$230 million apiece, $100 million more than Japan bought F-35 for and twice what Brazil paid for their Gripen Es.
Note that India got 36 french made Rafales while Brazil got large amounts of tech transfer in their bargain.
The Rafale is the most expensive option by far.

>>34732484
Gripen C is equal to the blk 50/52.
Gripen E is superior to any currently produced F-16.

>>34732730
You do have to remember that India is on good trading terms with next to nobody except Russia, and they're getting antsy waiting on the PAK-FA. China likely won't sell them aircraft, so the only option left is the French, who are well aware of their status as a non-friendly neutral power, and will exploit their desperate need for aircraft in the interim.

>>34732738
lol sure m8, C doesn't even have the same payload or thrust of a 52

>>34732758
It was the other way around, India was the only real option back then for a viable Rafale customer, it was kind of make or break for the Rafale as an export fighter.
The french lied their ass off about costs which in the end led to India ditching the whole deal, cutting it down to a symbolic 36 instead of the initial +136.
Now when they have restarted the purchase, Rafale was not even considered, the competitors Gripen and F-16 was chosen as finalists instead.

>>34732766
>muh payload
>muh thrust
Same arguments vatniks dole out when confronted with how shit their planes are.
Besides, it is Gripen E that is the new hotness, not the old C.

>>34732738
You are stoned. The Block 60 destroys the Gripen E in every measurable metric. The engine of the Block 60 makes double the fucking thrust of the F414G and it carries far more fuel and a much larger payload. The F-16 is the undisputed king of single engine fighters and this is not going to change.

>>34729524

> No VTOL category

>>34732825
>B-but the parts that matter don't matter!
Double the range. Better AESA. Greater parts availability. AIM-120D and ASRAAM compatibility. Need I go on or is your ass not sore enough yet?

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

139KB, 1150x563px

>>34732825
Not even a contest. Lets not even get into avionics

>>34732825
>Besides, it is Gripen E that is the new hotness, not the old C.

You're right, lets not even talk about how much the F-16V outclasses the Gripen E

>>34732825
But the Block 70 on paper atleast beats the Gripen in every relevant metric,
5th gen fighter tier APG-8X series AESA,

Reduced frontal RCS due to stealthier in takes

JHCMS II

>>34732836
so the boeing 787 is the undisputed king of dual-engine designs?

>>34732730
>Total contract/number of aircraft for India
>not the full cost of contract/airframes for Japan
This is exactly what i was talking about.
Japan's total FMS deal is $10 billion for 42 F-35s; that's $240(FY:2012) million per aircraft if we use the same method that you used for the Indian contract.
Likewise Brazil is paying $200 million each for their Gripens with the same method

File: 20-1.jpg (62KB, 710x557px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 710x557px

>>34732836
Oh honey

>>34733233
i didn't know that the F-35 could hit mach 12

>>34732851
>AESA
Gripen E with Raven is better by far
>AMRAAM-D
Gripen E with MBDA Meteor is better by far
>ASRAAM
Gripen E with IRIS-T is better by far.

Need some ice for that blasted ass, lad?

>>34732868
>>34732905
Gripen E has better weapons, better avionics, better data links and much easier to maintain than the 70s garbage that is even the latest F-16 models.

>>34732905
>Reduced frontal RCS due to stealthier in takes
Brazil media puts the Gripen E at 0.1 m^2 RCS. What does the new F-16 clock in at?

File: pgL_EP-10013_009.jpg (2MB, 2800x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2800x2000px

>>34731739

Not sure what the end game is but ECMOs that work in the EA-6B are being trained on the F35 systems. So my guess is that part of the ECM roll will be covered by the F35.

>>34733295
Did you mean 2?
The F-16 really struggles, it can only do it clean and it takes half it's fuel to get there.

>>34733643
no, mach 12. what the fuck is that halo/trail coming off of all the control surfaces? it looks like shit is breaking off.

>>34733654
Are you new to the concept of "transonic speed"?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transonic

>>34733683
right, so that's what shockwaves look like in infrared?

>>34733654

It's an IR camera, so that is air that is warmer than surrounding air due to friction with a fast moving surface.

>>34733534
>Raven better than AN/APG-8X class
You are on drugs.

>>34733691
>>34733689
almost looks like some kind of negative-remake of this one, desu

https://imgur.com/kjR4gqm

>>34733701
There is nothing the AN/APG-80 cando that the Selex Raven can't.
The difference is that the Raven is capable of covering a massive 220 degree arc compared to a measly 140 degree arc for the AN/APG-80.
That means that the Gripen is much better at operating independent of AWACS and ground radar which is very good if you are a smaller nation.

>>34726832
>>34726934
>>34727130
>>34730577
>>34730632
>>34730644
>>34730664
>>34730694
>>34730734
not an argument

>>34733576
>>34733534

>Better weapons
Nope, maybe if you consider BVR AAMs
>>34733805
exclusively, even then the AIM-120D outranges the meteor,Gripen doesn't have a stand off weapon that can match the JASSM,JASSM-ER which the F-16 has.

>Better avionics
220 degree arc doesn't matter when it has a puny range compared to the F-16 with APG-80/83 which will see the Gripen coming first,F-16 and US avionics in general are star wars future shit compared to Gripen avionics

>IRIS-T
Also available on the F-16

>Better Data Links
The Datalink bus on the F-16 block 70 is upgraded and the MMC is much faster,Gripen once again loses out.

>>34733586
Brazil Media what a reliable source, there's no figures available for the Blk70/72 basic aircraft design tells you Gripen intakes are Radar return hotspots

>>34733586
>Brazil media puts the Gripen E at 0.1 m^2 RCS.

Wow! What's next? "Brazilian media puts the Gripen on par with the F-35"?

>>34735435
It is in the same range as the Rafale, Eurofighter and Super hornet, no need to be retarded senpai

>>34735198
>>34735198
>AIM-120D
Is not even remotely as capable as the MBDA Meteor
>puny range
Same as the somewhat outdated APG-80 but the massive scan volume of the ES-05 Raven is a huge advantage.
>Also available on the F-16
Same could be said for Gripen E regarding pretty much every weapon you could fit to the F-16, it is made to accept pretty much all standard NATO weapons
>The Datalink bus on the F-16 block 70 is upgraded and the MMC is much faster
Pretty much the same on Gripen except Gripen got TIDLS which is extremely stealthy and unjammable. Gripen wins huge here.
> basic aircraft design tells you Gripen intakes are Radar return hotspots
[Citation Needed]
Gripen intakes are curved, fans are completely hidden from the front, engine has radar blockers and 0.1 m^2 is not really that impressive unless you are russian.

>>34730709
Looks pretty accurate to me.

>>34735435
desu, the 0.1 m^2 rcs has been touted for years now.

A large part is due to it being a very tiny plane.

File: Screen_Shot_2016_07_13_at_6_02_26_AM.png (338KB, 800x461px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 800x461px

>>34735198
The aim 120d is still a rocket engine missile, which will never match the performance of a ramjet design. Both in terms of avionics and sensors, the Meteor is a better missile than the amraam.

KEPD 350 was integrated into the Gripen system many years ago, a standoff weapon which is both heavier, and arguably more advanced than the JASSM.

Good luck using your radar actively in any air-to-air scenario, its a great way to get your aircraft toasted. Radar range is nothing but a function of how much power you can feed into the radar, and an entirely useless metric.

>tfw huge ameriboo but want saab to do well and make more planes

File: cmon son.png (323KB, 466x575px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 466x575px

>>34736122
>Radar range is a useless metric

>>34736027

Is that .1m^2 figure on a clean airframe? cause thats gonna increase dramatically with an external payload

>>34726656
Whichever one has a better trained pilot, AWACS support and data links.

>>34736385
Most likely but to be fair, that will apply to pretty much every single plane without weapon bays.

>>34736288
While it is not exactly useless, "range" is pretty arbitrary, you could do a russian and claim you can spot things at 400km and then add B-52 in small print.
It is also pretty retarded to claim that either the APG-80 or the ES-05 Raven has a range advantage, if you know the range of one, you probably don't know the other and you'd never tell in any case.
All we publicly know is that the Raven has a turntable which increases scanned area.

File: Gripen C.jpg (142KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1920x1080px

When did you realize that this was peak sexyness?

File: 1474376893064.jpg (90KB, 617x627px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 617x627px

>>34736288
It is physically impossible to determine both the speed and location of any particle, because of this the radar is useless.

>>34736931
Aha but you see, the missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.

In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.

The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.

>>34736931
>Radio enemy aircraft telling it where it is and how fast it's going
>Ceases to exist
Fight smarter not harder.

>>34736846
Too much MiG-21 alongside the F-5 and F-16 in it.

>>34736959
I see. Because the enemy plane is where the missile isnt, the missile only needs to move to where the missile wasnt to be where the aircraft is?

>>34736983
And Typhoon. Forgot to describe the Eurocanards.

>>34731811
Good, but I feel like the f22 belongs on the chart high up.

>>34732586
>thinking that the F-16 won't also be compatible with Meteor when it's been made compatible with fucking everything

>>34737069
>based on AC you can actually buy and fly today.
Doofus.

>>34737420
Show me a source and I'll consider it. However, since none of the meteor countries operate f-16, and that Raytheon really doesn't want to give up market share, I don't see a point.

>>34735556
>Meteor outclasses AIM120D
>Still can't match it's range

>APG80
>Outdated
APG 8X series is the most recent radar jn US arsenal, the 8X series is a 5th gen radar,it will far outrange the Selex

>Grioen has all NATO weaponry
Not all the good stuff like JASSM

>TIDLS
It's literally a normal datalink, there's nothing special about it with a slower, it's not stealthy, it operates in the same UHF band as link 16 , the only difference is TIDLS is a data link which doesn't require permission to use from NATO and neither has there been word by SAAB about any upgrades to the TIDLS available in the C/D models

>gripen intakes are curved
Do post pics of those curved intake gripens, I see a square intake on all the pics.

>kEPD 350
>Better than stealthy,1000+ km range JASSM

>>34742940
>Still can't match it's range
This is silly, and shows that you are not very knowledgeable about air to air missiles. Firstly, the meteor exists and is operational, the aim120D doesnt and isnt.

Secondly, a rocket engine still has inherent problems in a missile. If it wasn't, the US wouldnt have replaced the Pheonix with the Aim-120 at all, since it has a much longer theoretical dMax.

Gripen could most likely carry the JASSM, but doesn't because no country that operates or wants to operate Gripen doesn't use JASSM. As already stated, KEPD 350 is both heavier, stealthier and has longer range than the JASSM so the point is really moot.

Your TIDLS comment is honestly pretty dumb, as TIDLS and Link 16 is very different, both in how its used and how its achieved. Mainly it comes down to TIDLS being TDMA-based while Link 16 is broadcast based. Gripen also has integrated Link 16 as part of its datalinks, but TIDLS is both better and more advanced. The benefit of link 16 is that it is integrated in the entire USAF/USN/army structure.

As for the air intakes, i know nothing other than that it's redesigned.

The JASSM has a 370+km range. KEPD 350 has a 500+km range. The JASSM-ER has a 1000+ range.

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

366KB, 2340x1656px

>>34742940
>AIM-120
>current year
>still using rocket propulsion in your missiles
The Meteor is still vastly superior, meming won't hide that fact.
>it will far outrange the Selex
>[citation needed]
The Raven ES-05 is also the very latest state of the art, there us nothing that indicates that the APG-80 has any advantages whatsoever.
>JASSM
No Gripen operator fields the JASSM but Gripen E is qualified to carry them, at least according to SAAB.
>It's literally a normal datalink
Not in the slightest, it uses very high gain directional antennas and is thus unjammable and vert hard to detect unlike the F-16 data links.
The military in Sweden was quite upset when forced to use the Link-16 as it was much inferior to the latest TIDLS links on Gripen.
>square intake
So does the Eurofighter and it too have a <0.5 m^2 RCS. What matters is that the fans are hidden which Gripen does.
>KEPD/JASSM
Matters little, the customer can choose whichever they like.

File: gripen-ng-2.jpg (102KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 800x600px

>>34743162
>The military in Sweden was quite upset when forced to use the Link-16 as it was much inferior to the latest TIDLS links on Gripen.

This. Im not any of the other anons, but I worked in the Swedish Air Force for a while, and literally everyone agreed that Link 16 was terrible and that there was no reason we should use it besides "muh NATO".

Hell, our JA 37 Viggens/Stril 60 Datalink fielded in the 80's was more cabable and well suited for Sweden then Link 16.

>>34726656
Does it matter? Both slap the shit out of any russian plane abd probably every chink plane not the J-20.

>>34743083
>AIM-120D does not exist and is not operational.

Lel

>>34743162
>Link-16 as it was much inferior to the latest TIDLS links on Gripen.

Depends on the task. CMN-4 brings what TIDLS does to the table, sans it's increased jam resistance.

>>34745660
Still, powered by a rocket booster. The Meteor doesn't need any oxidizer thus getting up to three times more energy from the same amount of fuel on top of being able to throttle the jet engine.

File: image.gif (338KB, 538x572px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 538x572px

>>34736931
>Heisenberg uncertainty principle but for entire fucking aircraft
Nice

>>34726697
>meme image

>>34745754
>CMN-4
That came somewhere around 2015, right?
IIRC Sweden started adopting the Link-16 somewhere just before 2010, hence the grumbling about lost capability.

File: Aren't_i_a_clever_boy.png (124KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 680x680px

>>34745817
>The Meteor doesn't need any oxidizer
>jet engine.
The Meteor doesn't use a ramjet, it uses an air augmented rocket engine/ramrocket, so you are technically you are wrong on both counts
>Uses basically an inefficient solid booster, that leaves lots of fuel in the exhaust.
>The fuel in the exaust is then combusted with compressed ram air.
>throttled by changing the nozzle area of the solid engine: small nozzle=high pressure=higher burn rate.
>three times more energy from the same amount of fuel
ISP is trippled yes, however ISP isn't the only metric to judge engine efficiency, TWR is important too and so is drag from intakes/increased wet area.
Not denying that the Meteor likely outperforms the AIM 120D, at least in terms of range/NEZ; there is a reason the USAF has been following ramjet/ramrocket propulsion for it's next gen missiles.

>>34745955
I'm not sure, it's recent.

Even at its base level, they are two different networks. One is real time with a small network (4 ship max, IIRC), the other is a near real time with functionally infinite sized network.

Name a NATO munition that the F-16 cannot use.

>>34746079
>>34746079
9mm
5.56

>>34746031
>The Meteor doesn't use a ramjet, it uses an air augmented rocket engine/ramrocket, so you are technically you are wrong on both counts

http://www.mbda-systems.com/product/meteor/

>Meteor’s stunning performance is achieved through its unique ramjet propulsion system
>ramjet
You where saying? Unless you meant that a ramjet is not a jet engine.

But really, they also name it a ducted rocket too, the exact design is still somewhat secret and it seems like the lines are a bit blurry.
All we know is that a "solid fuel gas generator" provides fuel, if it's just an air augmented rocket or whatever, who knows?

>>34746079
Does the Meteor count as NATO munition?
It is funded 90% by NATO members.

>>34746161
It's just pedantry, hence the .jpg

>>34746050
yes, this is the real point about TIDLS and link 16; they are vastly different systems.

Should also be noted that TIDLS is one of several different communication systems Gripen uses/can use, and link 16 is one.

>>34746031
A ramjet is a rocket engine that doesn't have a compressor. The reason Raytheon didn't want in on the british ramjet missile program was that it was too advanced for the period and anything a western jet would face within the foreseeable future.

>>34746264
is a jet engine*

>>34746211
LM only integrates weapons if someone pays them to do so.

>>34746274
>LM only integrates weapons if someone pays them to do so
In other words, chances of a F-16 Meteor are slim.

>>34743083
There is no stealth element to the KEPD,JASSM has twice it's range, categorising ER version as a different missile entirely is like saying the AIM-120C7 and AIM-120D are different misses.

You've shown me nothing to prove meteors superiority other than just spouting ramjet engine again and again

On the other hand the AIM-120 has a Combat record to boast about.

The US is far ahead of the Europeans in seeker technology.

The only tangible benefit the meteor has is a better NEZ

AIM-120D very much exists and is superior to the Meteor

Why are you talking out of your ass ? link 16 too is TDMA based, a simple look at wikipedia would avoid you embarrassment

TIDLS in operational sense achieves nothing more , and not with anymore efficiency than the link 16,you have constantly posted bullshit, stuff like KEPD having stealth, link 16 not being TDMA based tells me you are the one lacking knowledge in the area

>>34746584
>KEPD,JASSM
Both available to Gripen, big deal which does what.
>You've shown me nothing
Neither has you tbqh
>ramjet
Is a pretty fucking huge advantage.
>AIM-120 has a Combat record to boast about
So does the AIM-4. Besides the combat record of the AIM-120 has been a measly 0.5 pk.
The meteor entered service late 2016 in the renowned military powerhouse Sweden which is still the only operator. Not many chances to get a combat record yet.
>The US is far ahead of the Europeans in seeker technology
[Citation Needed]
>AIM-120D very much exists and is superior to the Meteor
Nope, the massive range, NEZ and probably seeker advantage makes the Meteor a much, much superior missile.
>link 16 TIDLS, Gripen E is Link 16 capable but TIDLS is unjammable, not a wide broadcast system, stealthy and provided data sharing that was more than a decade ahead of link 16 at the time Gripen got both.
TIDLS has evolved too during these years.

File: f35 footage.gif (3MB, 491x333px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 491x333px

> Americans will defend this

>>34747796
Not american but it looks pretty good desu

>>34747796
what the fuck are you talking about?

>>34747962

Apologize.

>>34747796
Do you know what you're looking at?

>>34747796
>Youtube upload of a video of a powerpont presentation with a video of the recording camera from the F-35 helmet.
>Not actually as high res as what the pilot sees through the HMD.
>Not DAS
>Footage taken from the absolute worst possible extreme light conditions (supermoon).

>>34748260

> Calm night with a bright moon
> worst possible conditions

>>34747996

Is it a ""cuck fighter"" performing a ""cuck maneuver"" to land on a ""cuck boat"" like a ""sissi witeboi?""

>>34748439
A supermoon is literally the brightest the moon can ever be - in case you're not aware, night vision doesn't work very well in daytime, which this almost was.

>>34747796
Well, it is pretty good.

>>34746584
>There is no stealth element to the KEPD
Yes there is, the KEPD does have several LO features meant to work in conjunction with terrain masking in order to reach highly defended targets.

>>34747796
Oh shit it's hovering

>>34747604
JASSM hasn't been integrated into the Gripen

>Ramjet is a huge advantage
Has nothing to show for it yet.

>0.5pk is measly for BVR
Ok so you are retarded

No citation needed, the Americans were making missiles with seekers when the Yuropoors were making guided bombs

>Massive range
Outranged by AIM 120D
NEZ is one thing I'll give you.
US seekers are far superior to the European ones.

>tidls is unjammable
Citation Needed

>>34753559
>JASSM hasn't been integrated into the Gripen

To be honest this is for the same reson the Meteor inst on the F-16. Nobody has ordered it yet.

>>34735556
>>34736122
>doesn't realize MBDA compares the Meteor to the AMRAAM-C in its promotional material

>>34753559
>JASSM hasn't been integrated into the Gripen
Then why does SAAB say it is? >>34743162
Its not like any country using Gripen also uses JASSM, but you have no reason to say it cant. As it stands, the KEPD outranges the JASSM anyway.

>Has nothing to show for it yet.
Its the reason its NEZ is larger. "Outranging" is completely uninteresting, since a rocket powered missile is ballistic after the engine burns out. Any manouvering after that will bleed speed rapidly, whereas a ramjet design can throttle its propulsion. >>34736122

"yuropoors" where building missiles when the US didn't know how. Ever heard of the V-2?

As far as "us seekers being better", citation needed. US and European defence contractors shared pretty much everything during the development of the AMRAAM/ASRAAM; the entire point of the missiles where to be that the US and european NATO countries use AMRAAM and ASRAAM together.

>>34753646
Its still the same concept. Use a bigger rocket engine, and yes, you will achieve a longer "range", given a ballistic flight path. It's still not relevant, as the name of the game isn't "lob a missile furthest in a straight line".

The Meteor "100km" range figure comes from public statement about a test firing where it hit a supersonic and manouvering BQM 167 / Mirach 100/5 at "well above 100km" in a jamming environment. It's not a public max range figure, its just the highest public figure given so far.

>>34753742
You completely sidestepped what was said.

>>34753795
Meteor is a superior missile when it comes to long range engagements, although
>>34753646
AIM-120B actually. 3x the NEZ is still significant though and it's just common sense that a similarly sized missile with more efficiently packed propellant (because the fuel can be richer with more oxidiser coming from the atmosphere) and the ability to throttle its engine will have a longer range.

>>34753666
>Then why does SAAB say it is?
SAAB is saying it could be; so far *nothing* has been integrated into the Gripen E seeing as it only had its maiden flight a month or two ago. Hell, the GBU-53 SDB II hasn't even entered service yet.
>>34753559
>Meteor
>Outranged by AIM 120D
If you have a good source on that I'd be interested; otherwise I've seen indications that the Meteor has a max range of around or in excess of 200km.
>US seekers are far superior to the European ones.
In general I'd agree (just look as AIM-9X / ASRAAM) but I don't know for certain whether or not that'd be the case with AIM-120D vs Meteor. Japan's AESA that's planned to be put into (a variant of) the Meteor will probably make it superior, but that's not a European seeker anyway.

>>34747604
The AIM-120's pK is 0.61 in the real world; 0.85+ in a test environment.

>>34752822
It has some LO features, but not nearly to the same level as JASSM; KEPD has a big hemispherical IR reflector on its nose for starters.

>>34743162
No data link is unjammable.

>>34736122
Radar detection range varies depending on mode, etc, and is also a function of antenna design, total array / antenna size, the internal noise of its electronics, and yes also its output power, which in AESAs is dependent on the materials used and number of T/R modules / antennas.

File: youw.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>34726697

I postet that bait
Thanks for (you)s!
Americans are so easy to triger!
Bye ill be back in a couple of days with fresh bait my fish

>>34754204
>No data link is unjammable.
True but as far as TIDLS goes, you need a jammer between the transmitter and reciever to jam it.

File: SecondhandSoggyDairycow-size_restricted.gif (3MB, 172x129px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 172x129px

>>34754204
>AIM-9X / ASRAAM
Is there any real info on how those stack against the IRIS-T?
I know very little about the finer details of IR homing but the cyberpunk eye look of the IRIS-T is pretty cool if nothing else.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I-ergu8aP1U

>>34754729
>prepare your anus.gif

>>34754729
As far as i know, the IRIS-T seeker is made by the same company that made the ASRAAM seeker on which the AIM-9x seeker is a virtual copy of.

I believe the IRIS-T is more manouverable, as that was the reason they left the ASRAAM partnership, but fuck do i know.

Does anyone else get the Blackhawk helicopter captcha all the time?

>>34755015
what, the one with the sling-load?

>>34755015
>Blackhawk

No I only get roadsigns, cars or shops.

File: close-up-view-of-the-seeker-head-of-an-asraam-missile-HG653X.jpg (87KB, 1300x956px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1300x956px

>>34755015
>ASRAAM
It doesn't have that same eye look but as I don't know shit about IR seekers I couldn't say if they are the same but with cosmetic changes.

>>34754729
Hard to say exactly (obviously a lot of their testing and exact capabilities are classified) but based on what I do know:

The ASRAAM and AIM-9X have focal plane arrays (the same 128x128 resolution, UK-funded, Hughes [now Raytheon] developed sensor). The IRIS-T on the other hand uses a scanned seeker with 3 receptors.

What that means is that theoretically the ASRAAM and AIM-9X should have better target recognition (lower chances of blue-on-blue) and clutter rejection. Flare suppression should also be improved with an FPA, but there are other important factors to that as well, such as in the optics, seeker IR band, bandwidth, etc.

The ASRAAM and AIM-9X have the same seeker, but different back-ends / methods of processing. The ASRAAM also has a cooled sensor while the AIM-9X goes without it.

In other areas; the AIM-9X and IRIS-T have thrust vectoring while the ASRAAM does not (though an upgraded version with it has been proposed).

The ASRAAM has fewer / smaller fins than the other two missiles which also lends to slightly less manoeuvrability, but that also makes it less draggy and the ASRAAM also has a larger rocket, giving it a significantly longer range, meaning that enemies are more likely to get caught off guard by passive homing missiles that their MAWS may not have detected due to the launch distance.

Fuze-wise the ASRAAM and AIM-9X both also use laser & impact fuzes, making them largely (completely for the ASRAAM) immune to RF jamming that might otherwise trigger a premature detonation. The IRIS-T uses an active radar / RF fuze.

1/2

File: aim9x.webm (368KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 480x360px

>>34754729
>>34759694
2/2

Data-link wise, the ASRAAM has nothing (to my knowledge) and so for LOAL / HOBS it has to be given a target vector or coordinates before launch and if the enemy changes course as you fire, the missile might end up looking in the wrong place while you have no ability to change that. The AIM-9X and IRIS-T have data links.

So I guess overall, based on that public knowledge, I'd prefer either an AIM-9X Block II if I'm expecting to get close to an enemy or an ASRAAM if I want to keep some distance and just have seeker diversity (ie be able to engage BVR with heat seekers). The IRIS-T might be the most manoeuvrable of all 3, but if so I don't see it being that much more manoeuvrable than the AIM-9X, not enough to put up with its fuze and [probable] seeker limitations.

Are all these export F16s actually getting better than the models flown by the USAF? I'd believe it if so, no point in upgrading F16s when you'll be flying F35s soon enough.

>>34760038
Pretty much, although the USAF announced earlier this year that they'll be upgrading their F-16C/Ds with APG-83 AESAs, which will go a long way towards making them competitive with newer foreign F-16s:
http://www.airinternational.com/2017/06/09/us-air-force-f-16-radar-upgrade/

>>34760283
I'm at a loss, how will new radar keep the F16 competitive? Also why is the USAF so against putting CFTs on their F16s? Not like there's much of a performance downside right, increased range and flight time and they won't be dog fighting or anything.

>>34760728
Because the USAF's F-16s don't have the capability to accept CFTs without major body re-working, they came in too early to be able to carry them right out of the factory.

>>34760793
Are there F16s that are still flying with over 40 years of service?

>>34760283
They're also putting that radar on the B-1, though i'm not sure how helpful it actually is. I guess it helps with emissions control.

>>34760891
Not sure about that, but the current fleet of USAF F-16 Block 50/52s ended their shipments in 2004 while the CFT testing didn't kick in until 2001 and the plumbing for them only started to show up in the newer blocks after the USAF already received their order.

Add on that literally no USAF base has the equipment to bolt them on/take them off as well as no training, it'd just be too cost prohibitive to make the switch for a fleet of aircraft which are supposedly being stood down for their replacement over time.

>>34760728
Radars are on of the most critical pieces of technology on a fighter or SEAD aircraft; the better the radar the longer your detection and engagement range is (which is important as F-16Cs get equipped with AIM-120Ds). The new radar will also make F-16's a lot more capable of taking SAR imagery of ground targets, allowing them to better do CAS and strike missions through clouds, etc) and also improve their EW and ECCM capabilities which is important for SEAD and any air-to-air work (which can still happen like with the F/A-18E shooting down the Su-22).

>>34760913
The APG-83 probably has better SAR mapping capabilities than the Bone's current APQ-164.

>>34760994
>>34760728
Another thing too is that unlike Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc, the USAF has plenty of tankers and arguably plenty of F-16s to go around.