Its a pretty cool plane that fills a neat niche: "cheap," rugged multirole that is primed for dispersed basing.
The issue is the haters just shit on it because it isn't an F-22/35, J-20, or Eurofighter. Meanwhile the fans talk it up like its the greatest piece of military hardware of the century and that every nation should be buying them (nevermind that the Swedes can only produce a dozen or so a year).
It is cheaper but the real savings is in the operational costs (its like a fifth or something) and not the "retail."
Its a pretty cool plane that fills a neat niche: "cheap," rugged multirole that is primed for dispersed basing.
The issue is the haters just shit on it because it isn't an F-22/35, J-20, or Eurofighter. Meanwhile the fans talk it up like its the greatest piece of military hardware of the century and that every nation should be buying them (nevermind that the Swedes can only produce a dozen or so a year).
It is cheaper but the real savings is in the operational costs (its like a fifth or something) and not the "retail."
An elegant single engine modern fighter jet but it can't overcome the inertia of the F-16 in the same role & market. Also buying it doesn't get any political milega with the USA Federal Govt.
I like it despite it's failures to be more widespread. Even the delays caused by everyone wanting more F-16's isn't quite pushing it into being the second choice option that more nations are happy to accept.
A boosted trainer that tries to compete with real jets. The Gripen has one F-18 engine, the F-18 has two, and the F-18 was one of the contenders for the USAF _lightweight_ fighter program. If you cut a lightweight fighter in half, you get a trainer, which is what the Gripen is. Gripens primary competitor is the moron FA-50.
>Acshually the YF-17 had smaller engines and only 28% more thrust than the Gripen
ackshully it did not, that's YF17 max thrust vs Gripen's dry
both of you
>What does PrepHole think of the Gripen?
A boosted trainer that tries to compete with real jets. The Gripen has one F-18 engine, the F-18 has two, and the F-18 was one of the contenders for the USAF _lightweight_ fighter program. If you cut a lightweight fighter in half, you get a trainer, which is what the Gripen is. Gripens primary competitor is the moron FA-50.
should be comparing it to the F-16 where it's utterly trounced and better proves your point. hell even the Gripen's RM12 engine is just the F-18's GE F404 and the newer Gripen's literally ditch it to just use a GE F414.
OG gripen came too into the cold war to get eastern europe behind it.
also Sweden never intended to mass export it on the first place so they never thought getting bussiness partners from "neutral" countries, it was doomed to high prices from the begining.
as a plane on itself it fucks hard. great specs, low maintenace and operative costs, great compatible payload. not a "heavy fighter" like the rafale, tranche 4, EX and J-16 but still a great 4.5
It's a good little budget bird, but that's it. It's probably better than many of the other 4.5 gens but not the heavy hitters (Rafale, Typhoon, F16V,F-15)
Cute plane, better than most give it credit for and despite a multitude of components being foreign I admire the swedes' ambition to have a homegrown plane to be less reliant on other producers for their military hardware.
one motherfucker ejected in this at the airshow in town. He leaned back too far and gripen through the cockpit ceiling above him. I guess it fling him about a block away before he landed in somebody's yard.
They still use the same machine, but there's a huge duct tapped patch over one of those canopies in the ceiling.
I am in awe that a country of 10 million can design and produce military hardware of this caliber. It is a very solid jet, and aesthetically pleasing too. I wish the Swedes still made MBTs.
So do we. Not surprising that the first two things you see paraded in the courtyard at the sthlm military museum is the STRV103 and a long row of cannons.
Honestly, I don't think population has to matter that much for advancement in society, tech and industry at all. A country of 500k could self sustain its military and keep it current if it wanted to
Dope avionics package and really easy to operate and maintain. It's biggest fault is it competes with the F-16 Block 70/72 which comes with more extras, the most notable one being brownie points from the US.
A lot of people shit on it but it is quite capable.
It's not american made, so muricans on PrepHole will just shitpost and say that it's terrible and that the F-16 is a million times better and start screaming 'MURICA while drinking some "light" beer and shooting their guns to the skies
It's not American, but it's from a NATO-aligned country with American export-controlled components. In other words the subset of countries that would want and be allowed to get this is quite small
It has good and bad aspects. It has vastly superior compute architecture to any other fighter available right now, with a databus and containerized-OS that are far better than the F-35 and its weird janky problems and 1980's OS selected due to institutional inertia. It's cockpit seems to be quite good, as do its EW systems and radar, if a bit underpowered compared to the F-35. Part of that is its limited electrical power generation and thrust due to its old-ass F404 derivative engine. It has reasonable seeming IRST and MAWS, and sensor fusion that's probably better than the F-35's since it's not janky 90's stuff.But it's not stealth, so that's much worse, and no one's buying it so the unit cost isn't coming down
All in all, it's a pretty impressive design, but right now it's a more expensive and worse option than the F-35, due to its crappy engine and old airframe.
>probably wasn't worth it
It absolutely was and is. Right now NATO and the US is the shit but who knows if there's a political shift in the US in a few years and suddenly it isn't a dependable ally anymore. Maintaining the domestic know how in defense and aerospace is a big asset.
They never have been dependable. If the us and uk thought scandinavia was under threat of occupation by an enemy, NATO would preemptively invade and occupy. They have also already explicitly sabotaged our nuclear program, schemed to make the country depend on them, and probably spy on the state and populace more than even the russians or chinese do.
Outdated.
>outdated
>posts old soviet garbage from the 70s
>But it would have been fucking perfect for all of the eastern europeans and perfect for Taiwan
why? the f-35/f-16 is a better option in every way
That thing would be obliterated by a Viggen much less a Gripen
It should had been a cheaper F-16 but it failed miserably.
Its a pretty cool plane that fills a neat niche: "cheap," rugged multirole that is primed for dispersed basing.
The issue is the haters just shit on it because it isn't an F-22/35, J-20, or Eurofighter. Meanwhile the fans talk it up like its the greatest piece of military hardware of the century and that every nation should be buying them (nevermind that the Swedes can only produce a dozen or so a year).
It is cheaper but the real savings is in the operational costs (its like a fifth or something) and not the "retail."
gripen is too small and lacks power in every sense
Good, but trying to sell it as a competitor to the F-35 was retarded and doomed to failure.
This.
An elegant single engine modern fighter jet but it can't overcome the inertia of the F-16 in the same role & market. Also buying it doesn't get any political milega with the USA Federal Govt.
I like it despite it's failures to be more widespread. Even the delays caused by everyone wanting more F-16's isn't quite pushing it into being the second choice option that more nations are happy to accept.
>What does PrepHole think of the Gripen?
A boosted trainer that tries to compete with real jets. The Gripen has one F-18 engine, the F-18 has two, and the F-18 was one of the contenders for the USAF _lightweight_ fighter program. If you cut a lightweight fighter in half, you get a trainer, which is what the Gripen is. Gripens primary competitor is the moron FA-50.
Acshually the YF-17 had smaller engines and only 28% more thrust than the Gripen. That it doesn't change your point tho.
>Acshually the YF-17 had smaller engines and only 28% more thrust than the Gripen
ackshully it did not, that's YF17 max thrust vs Gripen's dry
both of you
should be comparing it to the F-16 where it's utterly trounced and better proves your point. hell even the Gripen's RM12 engine is just the F-18's GE F404 and the newer Gripen's literally ditch it to just use a GE F414.
OG gripen came too into the cold war to get eastern europe behind it.
also Sweden never intended to mass export it on the first place so they never thought getting bussiness partners from "neutral" countries, it was doomed to high prices from the begining.
as a plane on itself it fucks hard. great specs, low maintenace and operative costs, great compatible payload. not a "heavy fighter" like the rafale, tranche 4, EX and J-16 but still a great 4.5
gripen fans are annoying retards tho.
that's because they're usually brazilians who got hyped for their air force's new purchases
It's a good little budget bird, but that's it. It's probably better than many of the other 4.5 gens but not the heavy hitters (Rafale, Typhoon, F16V,F-15)
delta wings are the bullpups of the airplane world
suppose so
Cute plane, better than most give it credit for and despite a multitude of components being foreign I admire the swedes' ambition to have a homegrown plane to be less reliant on other producers for their military hardware.
Cute.
It's a nice looking jet!
one motherfucker ejected in this at the airshow in town. He leaned back too far and gripen through the cockpit ceiling above him. I guess it fling him about a block away before he landed in somebody's yard.
They still use the same machine, but there's a huge duct tapped patch over one of those canopies in the ceiling.
she fucks like a hot woman
I am in awe that a country of 10 million can design and produce military hardware of this caliber. It is a very solid jet, and aesthetically pleasing too. I wish the Swedes still made MBTs.
So do we. Not surprising that the first two things you see paraded in the courtyard at the sthlm military museum is the STRV103 and a long row of cannons.
Honestly, I don't think population has to matter that much for advancement in society, tech and industry at all. A country of 500k could self sustain its military and keep it current if it wanted to
The girl that never gets picked at the dance but always shows up in a pretty dress anyway
Dope avionics package and really easy to operate and maintain. It's biggest fault is it competes with the F-16 Block 70/72 which comes with more extras, the most notable one being brownie points from the US.
A lot of people shit on it but it is quite capable.
It's not american made, so muricans on PrepHole will just shitpost and say that it's terrible and that the F-16 is a million times better and start screaming 'MURICA while drinking some "light" beer and shooting their guns to the skies
It's not American, but it's from a NATO-aligned country with American export-controlled components. In other words the subset of countries that would want and be allowed to get this is quite small
>What does PrepHole think of the Gripen?
The plane the Ukraine needs but doesn't deserve.
It has good and bad aspects. It has vastly superior compute architecture to any other fighter available right now, with a databus and containerized-OS that are far better than the F-35 and its weird janky problems and 1980's OS selected due to institutional inertia. It's cockpit seems to be quite good, as do its EW systems and radar, if a bit underpowered compared to the F-35. Part of that is its limited electrical power generation and thrust due to its old-ass F404 derivative engine. It has reasonable seeming IRST and MAWS, and sensor fusion that's probably better than the F-35's since it's not janky 90's stuff.But it's not stealth, so that's much worse, and no one's buying it so the unit cost isn't coming down
All in all, it's a pretty impressive design, but right now it's a more expensive and worse option than the F-35, due to its crappy engine and old airframe.
Good reply, thanks.
What about the new F414G adopted on the new 39E and F Gripens?
As a Swede obviously F-35 are better. You can't compete when it comes to that.
All the money developing the jets we have probably wasn't worth it.
>probably wasn't worth it
It absolutely was and is. Right now NATO and the US is the shit but who knows if there's a political shift in the US in a few years and suddenly it isn't a dependable ally anymore. Maintaining the domestic know how in defense and aerospace is a big asset.
They never have been dependable. If the us and uk thought scandinavia was under threat of occupation by an enemy, NATO would preemptively invade and occupy. They have also already explicitly sabotaged our nuclear program, schemed to make the country depend on them, and probably spy on the state and populace more than even the russians or chinese do.
Uniornic garbage (like everything not built by the US that hasn't gone through 2-3 reveisions)
Gripen E assembly line was inagurated in Brazil this week.
In the same week their air-force received two more units of Gripen E.
It's the best 5th generation jet fighter on the market.
Swedish jets are cool af, but compared to the draken or viggen this is much weaker vs it’s contemporaries.
sveden YES