F-16 vs Gripen

>>34862131
>Advantage

The only advantage is that you can say to your latently anti American population that you didnt buy it from the Americans. They dont have to know that 90 % of it is American tech needing American export licence.

>>34862200
This.

I also find it extremely dubious the assertions that it's cheaper to maintain considering how many F-16 parts manufacturers are in Europe to say nothing of the ease of finding people trained for its maintenance.

>>34862200

It's a lot less than 90% US tech, but yes, it's a good choice if you really don't want to go US.

>>34862200
>still uses US engines or licensed US engines

lol

File: Capture.jpg (500KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 1000x667px

>>34862131
It turns into a couch if you bought the right accessories?

>>34862131
Operational cost and readiness. Rough field performance.

>>34862131
It has the advantage of having a mustache, the F16 doesn't have that.

File: W1I0345-1.jpg (113KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1000x667px

>rafale

>>34862131
It has the advantage of being so ugly that the enemy won't even notice that it is a 4th-gen aircraft.

File: brazil top engineers.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

THE MOST POWERFUL RACE IN THE WORLD CHOSE THE GRIPEN

>>34862705
You made me go DEFCON1 until I found out it was RC.

>>34862354
Could you elaborate? Are operational costs that cheaper? Also F-16 has a bigger payload, and it seems to be cheaper.

>>34862200
>>34862252
How much US tech is there in the Gripen?

>>34863407
Mostly the engine iirc

File: main-qimg-a7d5a0386f4d4588f44df5048f53c4cc-c.jpg (73KB, 602x404px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 602x404px

>>34863407

not sure how current this is

File: AIR_JAS-39_Gripen_NG_Brazilian_Components_Saab_lg.jpg (103KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 800x599px

>>34863432

and this is the huehuehue version

File: 87625-saab-ja39-gripen.jpg (159KB, 850x542px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 850x542px

>>34863407

See for yourself. It's about 30% British I know, so you can gauge the amount of US stuff in there knowing that number. It'll be a bit more British in the Gripen-E, since they're making the AESA now.

So yeah, somewhat large amounts of Murrican too. It's more US/Brit Anglo plane than it is Swedish at times.

Other than political reasons, is there any reason to pick the Gripen over a F-16?

>>34862131
As a design, it has a lot more room for lifespan upgrades than F-16s.
Other than that it's got STOL capabilities, can operate from shitty runways, was designed so that Lasse & Kenny conscript could maintain it, low flight-hour & maintenance costs, very easy to integrate weapon systems with (American, French, Russian, Indian, local).
It's a great design for smaller nations or nations without huge military budgets, particularly ones that want to stimulate local industry and receive technology transfer deals.

The F-16 is still a viable option (especially if you're receiving Uncle Sam's military welfarebux), but the design is getting long in the tooth, and there isn't a modern light(er) fighter design on the market. It's either Su-30s/35s, Eurofighters, Rafales, or F-35s.
Many nations want the equivalent of the F-5 to keep costs down & flying hours up.

>>34863567
F-20 reborn when

>>34863598
She was too pure for this world

File: sad giraffe.jpg (29KB, 280x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 280x500px

>>34863598
>tfw the F-20 never made it

It would've been an amazing export fighter, but the Gripen is basically a delta-wing+canard F-20 with fancier electronics.

>>34863567
This is what I was looking for, thanks.
At first glance the F-16 has similar performance, a bigger payload and the airframe cheaper, so I couldn't get around the huge buzz about, thanks.

File: f16acute.jpg (154KB, 1600x734px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1600x734px

Screw your question. Why is the F-16 so goddamn aesthetic?

Also post cute F-16s

>>34863663
>and the airframe cheaper

Fighter aircraft costs aren't as conventional today as they were in the past.
I know some about Saab's deals, they include a very generous support, maintenance, and training programs in their offers, and are strangely open to technology transfer deals (HUGE deal for anyone who isn't US, UK, France, or Russia).

But the big point is that Saab Group is the Swedish Government's little bastard, and the Swedish Government supports Gripen sales. The number 1 seller of fighter aircraft is political backing, and the US is almost solely backing the F-35.

>>34862131
Cheaper operating costs.

>>34863775
> Saab Group is the Swedish Government's little bastard

So by buying Gripen you are indirectly supporting achmed and friends in their european trips.

File: F16-09.jpg (386KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1500x1125px

>>34863722

You know when a hamster stuffs a load of food into it's cheeks?

File: F-16 Fighting Falcon Fighter Jet With Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (DSI) (2).jpg (92KB, 950x672px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 950x672px

>>34863722

hehehehe

>>34866947
The F-16 gets fatter every year.

>>34866967
It causes Pierre Sprey physical pain, so I must like it.

>>34862240
Almost everyone i know is a F-16 maintainer
2A373B

>>34862131
Apart from what the others have said about cheap operating costs, the ability to fly from shitty runways and the political aspects there are two more big selling piont that the Gripen (at least the NG when it's finished) has over the F-16: Lower RCS and a superb datalink - the last being only rivaled by the F-35

>>34867532
I don't think it's shown the capability to do crazy things like guide SM-6 shots

>>34862240
Gripen's using COTS parts wherever possible is one of the key reasons why they can keep the costs down even when the fleet size isn't that big. Those same parts that need periodic replacements are also used in thousands of civilian planes as well, other fighters generally opt for special snowflake parts unique to those planes to shave off weight etc.

>>34867199
Why would it matter if some dude in Belgium knows how it works, most nations primarily use their jets for national defence and they never leave the home country.

>>34863470
Most of the US components listed there are minor stuff tho.

>>34863540
Cheaper to run, can take of from like 300 meters of regular road, can be refueled/rearmed by 5 guys in less than 10 minutes (critically important as fighters on a the ground is about as usefull as tits on a fish) uses less fuel (could bi limited in wartime), way way better datalink etc.

File: f_16xl__carrying__6x_agm_65_maverick_underwing_by_fighterman35-d9x66cz.jpg (121KB, 1015x788px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1015x788px

>>34866967
>implying that's a bad thing.

File: facebook_1448275323577.jpg (117KB, 498x750px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 498x750px

>>34867778
>Stealing the Draken design

Rude

>>34867787
Anon those are engine intakes, not extended wings.

File: f-15 eagle11.jpg (443KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1024x683px

>>34867199
2a6x6. done now. 7 years in. F15 B(dont ask)/C/D/E, F-16 blocks 15-50 all fucked up and modded to hell. Had one off experiences with numerous other airframes.

Hands down, aside from the fucking saber we tried to fix for a static display, the F-16 is the biggest fucking pain in the ass to work on if you dont just take the damn thing apart. Also fuck wafer stacks.

Each jet sort of has a history in its design. The F-15 is now, only now, with the AESA upgrade, getting so crammed full of shit that its annoying. The F-16 sports numerous humps, a spine, and is so fucking crammed full of shit that you cant wedge a sheet of paper in it. Good fucking luck removing any ECS low/ high stage shit with the engine in. Its doable. But it sucks.

>>34867797
They are extended wings, it was the main point of the Draken, the worlds first double delta design.

>>34867804
Ok,i stand corrected.

>>34863540
It built to be used with Swedens hide in the woods and be a bitch doctrine making it Abel to use roads as runways and low maintenance no need to have the runway completely clean and such

Gripen E has a god-tier datalink and lower RCS.

>>34868351
This.

Our Viggens had a better link in the 80s than Natos Link 16 is today.

When we switeched over to Link 16 to be able to communicate with other nations everyone realized how absolutly useless the Link 16 was compared our system.

>>34862571
>laughs in baguette

>>34862131
What is the closest slavshit analogue to the Gripen or F-16?
The only thing I can thinkbof filling the same role is the MiG-29 but the Fulcrum is massive compared to them.
The only other is the ancient MiG-21 which was not at all built with the same role in mind as the Gripen or the F-16.
Why does the russians not build a new, smaller single engine aircraft in the same vein as the western small fighter? One would think that a country with as poor economy as russia would opt for something cheaper than the huge and expensive failure that is the Su-57 which they cannot afford.

File: F16-14.jpg (163KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 2100x1500px

How about pictures of casts of Falcons?

File: F16-06.jpg (299KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1600x1200px

>>34869572

>>34867752
The more people that know how something works = less expensive training and education. Basic supply and demand.

File: F16-02.jpg (874KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

874KB, 1920x1280px

>>34869572
>>34869585

>>34868738

The MiG-29 is the answer.

>>34862131
Better radar (for now)
Integrated IRST
Ostensibly cheaper to operate
More maneuverable (than pigfat late-block F-16s, at least)
Mild supercruise capability
Better short-field performance

Still doesn't outweigh the drawbacks IMO

>>34869599

I guess that makes sense, but after all Gripen was designed to be as easy to maintain as possible (most tings is really idiot proof, so that the conscripts could learn it fast)

>>34862131
best fighters imo in 2017:

1.pak fa
2.j-20
3.f-22 (its old 1990s)
3.su-35s
4.su-30
5.J-11
6.rafale(best western non-stealth aircraft)
7.eurofighter
8.f-35(maybe better than 4.5 gen but too expensive)
9.gripen(perfect cheap aircraft for small AF-s)
10.f-15(too old)
11.f-16
what do you think

>>34862820
>Are operational costs that cheaper?
At least previous versions of Gripen are designed to be maintained mostly by a couple of conscripts and one specialist. So the cost and logistics of personell and gear needed to service it is very low.

This might be different with the NG version, I don't know much about that one.

>>34869941
I think you are full of bullshit.

1. F-22, hands down
2. F-35
3. J-20

And way below all western 4th gens comes the slavshit.

>>34870019
No, we have not had any mentions that organization of our maintanance troops will change so Id say its probably the same.

t. enlisted in the Swedish Air Force.

>>34869602
me and the crew coming to fuck your girl

Why do Euros like canards and delta wingson their planes? Whats wrong with stabilators?

File: Esthetiq.png (538KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 960x540px

>>34863722
I thought you might appreciate pic
>34869941
>ebic b8, no (you) for (you)
>>34869602
hnnnggg

>>34867752
lol, not even close

Im still mad about our gypsy pres choosinf gripen As instead of F-16s, usa would have built a plant for it too

>>34869941
>this pasta again

>>34868738
Gripen is not a threat to Russia, so Russia has no need to have an analogue to it. Russia can destroy and put out of commission any air force on earth that uses Gripen.

if they would fuck, would it be like gently and cuddle, because they're not that big, or something else

>>34871745
pasta?

File: Thunder.jpg (801KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

801KB, 1366x768px

>>34868738
JF-17

Light fighter powered by a single medium thrust engine in the same class as the F-404.

File: A5F12673-E5D3-4B79-88FB-174C124CE242_zpsjml2lr0w.jpg (62KB, 1024x762px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1024x762px

>>34872183
And I think it is also more versatile, as you can use it for anti-shipping role as well.

>>34863540
It's sexy

File: plane.jpg (111KB, 700x403px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 700x403px

>>34872211

>And I think it is also more versatile, as you can use it for anti-shipping role as well.

dude, Gripen is fully capable of using RBS-15 ASM

>>34872308
>RBS-15

Ok, I stand corrected.

Basically, the Gripen, FA-50 and JF-17 are more or less the only modern multi-role light fighters these days on the market.

The F-16 is already in a different weight class (just because of its hig-thrust engine already).

I would propose following classification:

>Low-tier Light-fighter (single medium thrust engine, 80-90kn) class: Gripen, JF-17, FA-50

>High-tier Light-fighter (single high-thrust engine, 100-180kn) class: F-16, J-10, F-2, F-35

>Medium fighter (twin medium thrust engines) class: MiG-29, Typhoon, Rafale, J-31 etc.

>Heavy fighter (twin high-thrust engines) class: F-15, Su-27/J-11/Su-30, J-20

>>34872397
>F-35
>Light fighter

You know it's heavier than everything in the first three rows right?

>>34872499
F-35 is a strange one indeed.

It maybe deserves a special category, since its engine alone produces more thrust than the combined twin engines of most medium fighters.

But in terms of weapons loadout (I literally focus on "fighter loadouts", thus AAMs), it sits well in this class.

>>34872397
>Using thrust to mesure fighters

Nigga wat

>>34872522
If you're focusing on that then it belongs solidly in the third line. So does the J-10 probably. And shit, the Mig-29 is worse than everything in the second row in that regard.

>>34872551
T/W ratio is important for so many things.

Especially when autistic people start screeching about why anyone would buy the Gripen when there are thousands of F-16s lying around that carry much more and much heavier weapons etc.

Thrust was always the answer.

Just because F-16 and Gripen are both single engine fighters, it doesnt mean they are in the same class as per design.

F-404 and F-100 are completely different classes of engines. And thus the performance is so different.

>>34871483
Yes. Even close.

Naturally Nato-members and superpowers move them around a bit, but other than that, most people keep theirs at home, or goes at the occational airshow or exercise, but that is such a small percentage of flighthours, so It doesnt really change the cost in any mesurable way.

>>34870019
I suspect JAS 39E (the domestic version of the Gripen NG) likely has to meet the same operational requirements as JAS 39C.

>>34872574
My proposed classification doesnt say anything about how the planes themselfes are shit or not. Just their engine layout.

F-35 is probably better than anything in that entire list, but it is a single engine fighter jet with a somewhat limited (internal only) AAM loadout.

I would say maybe these 5th gen fighters are all together in a different ballpark.

>>34872579
Sure the engines produce different ammounts of thrust, but preformace is similar, due to things like drag and overall design.

The F-35 for example has a massive engine and still isnt significantly faster or better handling than others.

>>34872579
Also T/W is important, but you only specified T.

File: 4.jpg (394KB, 900x2458px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 900x2458px

>>34863441

File: dn-st-85-12695[1].jpg (222KB, 1200x803px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1200x803px

>>34863598
>>34863633
>>34863654
Never. Look at that shit, it seriously fucks with its payload capability.

>>34872397
>Low-tier Light-fighter (single medium thrust engine, 80-90kn) class: Gripen, JF-17, FA-50

this is basically the poverty-tier of fighter jets.

>Heavy fighter (twin high-thrust engines) class: F-15, Su-27/J-11/Su-30, J-20

This class is only for the chosen few

>Medium fighter (twin medium thrust engines) class: MiG-29, Typhoon, Rafale, J-31 etc.

The class for the vassal states to the chosen few

>>34872579
A reason to buy medium-thrust engine powered fighter jets compared to high thrust ones is also because the maintenance requirements are far lower.

>>34872397
FA-50 is a repurposed trainer.

Admittedly, it has a relatively powerful engine which is untypical for its class.

But that shitty thing cant even into BVR engagements.

It should belong to the Fighter-Trainer tier i.e. trash-tier of the fighter world.

>>34872701
And fuel consumption. My guess is that in most national defence scenarios that should be a concern.

>>34867800
>don't ask
You know I have to now.

Also, nice dubs.

>>34872724
>FA-50 is a repurposed trainer.

It was designed from the start to be both light fighter and trainer. As worst Korea had zero experience in designing high performance jets, they needed cooperation from a friendly company, Lockheed Martin... who had conditions for their cooperation, namely they made certain that fighter version will never be serious competitor for F-16.

>Admittedly, it has a relatively powerful engine which is untypical for its class.

It has lower rated version of same engine as Gripen A/B/C/D, as side note HAL Tejas mk1 has newer even higher rated version of F404.

>But that shitty thing cant even into BVR engagements.

They will integrate AMRAAM for FA-50 that has better radar than T-50.

FA-50 is likely the biggest problem T-50 has in getting export contracts. The fact that there is fighter version makes mid tier air forces avoid it as some politician might cut funds for future procurement of proper fighters in favor of cheap fighter that has already synergy benefits with existing trainer.

>>34872685

That would make sense if most of the "medium fighters" didn't wipe the fucking floor with J-11/Su-27/Su-30.

But they do.

>>34873331
The growth potential of the heavy fighters is a lot better.

Larger radars, more internal fuel, more weapons etc.

medium fighters are a dead end. See how the Typhoon will be replaced after just a few dedaces of service and how the MiG-29 was always shit. And Rafale... Kek.

>>34872397
>>34872685

What about the Bug and Super Bug? How would you categorize them?

>>34873406
I would say naval fighters deserve their own classification.

So many limitations because of their role...

>>34872397
>>34873307
I wouldn't put the FA-50 in the same league as the Gripen tho

How much more capable is a F-16 over a Gripen? Performance wise.

>>34869941
>pak-fa
>building 12
>that's within rounding error of '0'

into the trash the opinion goes...

>>34872634
>The F-35 for example has a massive engine and still isnt significantly faster or better handling than others.
It has a significantly higher range on internal fuel and a significantly higher payload.
It's T/W: more thrust allows you to have more weight.

>>34872662
>it seriously fucks with its payload capability.

what shit?

>>34872685
>>34872685
>Angola
>Belarus
>Ukraine
>Indonesia
>Kazakhstan
>Malaysia
>Uganda
>Venezuela
>Vietnam
>Eritrea
>Ethiopia
>Mongolia
>Uzbekistan
>Saudi Arabia
>Singapore
>Qatar
>'the chosen few'

The F-35 has more thrust than all of your medium fighters.

>>34862131
Bigger Grip Zone™

>>34872634
>The F-35 for example has a massive engine
The F135 engine can actually make more than 55,000Lbs of thrust
Despite being rated at 43,000

Every test pilot said the energy recovery of the f35s is very good.
That and the engine responds to throttle inputs instantly.
The f16s f100 engine is a laggy pile of shit.

>>34872647
>Gripen
>Turkey

Gripen doesn't have any plants in Turkey. Turkey does produce F-16s though so this joke would have worked better the other way around.

>>34877309
Look how low that drop tank and the wings are in comparison to the F-16.

>>34877647
>The f16s f100 engine is a laggy pile of shit.
you better quit saying shit about my planefu

>>34874489
They are pretty similar, and its hard to say one is better then the other. It all depends on doctrine. The F-16 can carry more bombs and the Gripen can operate in worse conditions

File: 1499821564848.png (704KB, 1281x677px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 1281x677px

>>34862705
>>34862810

>>34878976
The landing gear preventing the inner half of the wing from carrying anything also doesn't help-damn shame they couldn't build it into the wing roots and have it stow parallel to the plane's long axis...

>>34879202
So the F-16 only has a bigger payload?

>>34882110
Yep, and a better range I guess, but that is usually the case, as you can allways trade range for payload