>2016
>Still using expensive, over-engineered aircraft
>Not just buying Saab Gripen instead
>>29447536
>Euroshit
How about no.
>>29447568
>Spend 24 years developing ultra secret high tech jet fighter
>Only buy like 10
>Never use them for anything because they're too expensive to risk breaking
>>29447589
>Literally 187 in use
Well memed friendo :^)
Oh also almost forgot about the most advanced fighter jet in the world, American of course. Enjoy your shitty poorfag planes as your militaries try and fail to get the F 35.
>>29447637
Forgot pic, so beautiful.
>>29447644
>Decades behind schedule
>Billions over budget
>Core features still don't work
>>29447536
>2016
>Still buying aircraft when you can't use them to kill sandniggers in Europe
>>29447568
>9 years to integrate Aim-9x
>only way to do that was with a dirty workaround that tricks the weapons management system thinking it's an older aim-9
Wow, that's amazing Burger-san, no one else can even fathom how to do a super mega system like F-22. No wonder you keep it a closed guarded secret.
>>29447589
>>29447637
>>29447656
You know he was baiting you, right?
>>29448183
>a plane that was 15 years ahead of its time had a few problems
>implying Eurofags have anything half as effective
>>29447536
>buying a flying volvo that costs more and is no better than a super duper Hornet
>>29448202
>HAHA GOTCHA I WAS ONLY PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED xDDDDD
>>29447589
Total bait post, but that Gripen in his picture there? That's actually in -British- military service, as a plane for the Empire Test Pilot School.
It often comes as a surprise that the British operate a Gripen.
>>29447536
>2016
>Literally worse than an F-16 from 1990
>>29448325
A simple weapons integration taking a decade is not "few problems", it's called fucking retarded software design and implementation of it. Guess who is in charge of a another similar cluster fuck that is demonstrating similar software woes?
>>29448325
>a plane that was 15 years ahead of its time>
>Be 15 years ahead of it's time
>Be 24 years delayed.
Wew.
>>29447568
Non-outdated shit fighters is still in production. That things production line closed before any of the aircraft it replaced had their production line shut down.
>>29447536
>Buying special snowflake swedeplane instead of it's equal, F-16 Block 50/60
>>29449123
Im sure if we give LM (tm) some more money, im sure they will solve it this time!
>>29449548
>Giving more money to LM for F-16's after they've already failed to deliver the F-35
>>29449708
>implying delays weren't because the planning was overoptimistic
>>29448380
>no better than a super duper Hornet
Probably on par or better than a SH in most situations
>costs more
>last Gripens for the SwAF costed less than 30 million USD a pice.
>costs more
Yeah no.
>flying volvo
Litteraly has a Volvo engine so that one is correct.
>>29449708
>implying the F-16 isn't much, much more proven than Swedeshit
>>29450820
>Gripen NG flyaway estimate in the Rafale/Typhoon range ~$20m more than an F-35A
>Cheaper
>>29450820
There is no way Gripe NG costs 30 mil. That's Russian low price and we all know what that means. Honestly the only reason to buy anything but F-16, F-35 is because you think Uncle Sam might embargo you but that's not a reason to buy Gripes when they are 20-30% US technology anyway.
>>29450820
fucking lel, sorry.
Unless they're made of balsa wood and made it Thailand, they're not 30mil/unit.
>Thinking your Swede shit is better than a proven platform like the Hornet.
>>29450900
>>29450888
Working in the Swedish Air Force i can indeed safely say that they did.
However export costs are a lot more. This applies for every fighter.
85 million for a F-35A will only be the price the US will pay. Others will pay a lot more.
For example, the Brasilian govt decided to buy 36 JAS 39E Gripen for a cost of US$5.44 bn. (Including a fucking factory to build them in)
Japan has (as a first time customer) decided to buy 42 F-35A for US$10 bn.
>>29450968
>Super Duper Hornet
>Battle Proven
Also, battle proven means nothing when the current threat most countries face isnt even remotly close to the combat the F/A-18 has been involved in.
>>29450888
>>29450900
>>29450937
Sauce for 30 million claim:
FMV, aka Swedish national defence material administration.
http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/forsvarets_materielverk__fmv/pressreleases/stark-milstolpe-av-gripenprojektet-258602
Too bad it's fucking ugly.
>>29451122
Are you on crack or something?
It's one of the best looking 4th gens out there.
>>29447536
I see your wife is letting you use the Internet.
>>29450888
>Flyaway is the only cost involved, guys!
It's like you don't understand a fucking thing about modern aircraft deals.
>>29447536
They should have kept it simple (and hence cheap), seeing its single engine it will fill that role nicely. All the NG stuff is adding too much to its cost and makes it less competative to the other eurotriangles.
Just think, it could have been the new F16 for countries who doesn't get to buy F35s.
>>29451336
What are you talking about?
Saab has stated that they will keep the cheaper JAS 39C in production for exacly this purpose. And that models with tech from the Gripen E will be available in for operators of the Gripen C if they wish to implemet it.
>>29450983
Japan is also 'buying a factory' to assemble F-35's.
>>29451396
Oh yes, that is correct. Only the first ones will be produced in the US. (Similar to the Gripen deal)
Still dont change the fact that the F-35 costs a lot more.
>>29451368
Yeah, except the fact that the JAS 39C is still a comparatively expensive aircraft. It will never fill the role of the F-16.
>>29450983
85 million is the fly away cost, sans the flying, since that cost doesn't include the 30 million engine.
>>29451430
Thats becouse a small country with a population of less than New York could not even dream of producing the sort of numbers the F-16 was produced in.
If the Gripen was American it would have been sold all over the world.
>>29450983
Yes, but you're still talking about two completely different classes of aircraft. An F-35, for all its flaws, will still outperform a Gripen.
>>29451458
It has for the last year.
>>29451490
I'm not saying that the aircraft is bad, all I'm saying is that it's considerably more expensive than comparable aircraft on the market.
>>29451162
It's the most easily comparable.
>>29451496
>An F-35, for all its flaws, will still outperform a Gripen.
As a stealty strike fighter? Absolutly.
As a cheap fighter for operating off highway strips with minimal support? Not so sure about that. They were built for different roles and with different things in mind.
And if we look at the deals mentioned in >>29450983
we see that you could get roghly 1.6 Gripen E per F-35. And the F-35 is good, im not going against that, but is it 1.6 times as good?
The FH cost for a Gripen should be a lot lower to so chances are the Gripen pilots will get more training.
I'll just leave this here.
>>29451559
FH cost is probably more important as these aircraft will probably be in service for well over 40 years.
Could always use Gripen for regular home patrolling.
Save the F-35 for the actual combat.
>>29451576
That pic contains some cherry picking but still, what did you expect from an extermly small country like sweden? That they invent all the components themself when there already are good ones out there?
>>29451576
Dat glorious level of detail regarding individual components' point of origin.
>>29451593
>Grippen.
What. What is a Grippen?
>>29451615
A lewd slut.
>>29451601
Well most of the swedish military is just shit from other countries that's then slightly rebuilt
>MBT - Stridsvagn 122, rebuilt leopard 2
>Service rifle - Ak5, rebuilt FNC
>Homeguard rifle - Ak4, rebuilt G3
and so on
>>29451615
Korean>English mistranslation.
Like that one video that turns the heavily accented "We are Gripen Pilots" into "We are grippin parts."
>>29451601
At what point does it become more economically reasonable to just buy an aircraft from a larger nation that can produce them cheaply?
>>29451514
It is, and there is litterally nothing anyone can do about it. Old mid 80s low FH USAF F-16s are cheap as fuck now. They have sort of became the milsurp nugget of airforces.
>>29451601
Nobody is "expecting" more but it's still a very, very valid argument as to why the Gripen is not worth considering.
>>29451655
When you decide to give up the skills to manufacture them like Canada.
>>29451656
Seems like they chose to compete in an already cornered market niche then. Bad call.
>>29451559
And the most inaccurate for actually seeing how much a plane will cost somewhere.
>>29451651
We used to produce and invent most of our stuff by ourselfs during the CW. But that has sort of stopped.
Atleast we have the Cv90, CG and AT4.
>>29451678
Nobody really knew this in the early 80s when the Gripen project was started.
>>29451710
I think you're doing better than Canada if I remember right.
>>29451657
Why is that? Because it contains american parts?
>>29451734
I think we are to.
The US Army actually imports quite a bit from us.
Was someone looking for an inexpensive Western fighter?
>>29451825
>korea
>west
>>29451841
Better than north.
>>29451841
They might as well be.
>>29451841
they're honorary westerners
>>29450983
Nope. The swedes payed 100m+ for the latest Gripen NGs. The latest JAS-39Cs cost 68.9m apiece flyaway, which is over 20m more expensive than inflation adjusted F-16C block 50/52 birds at last USAF buy, and still not even the Gripen NG.
>>29451855
With an emphasis on "honor."
>>29451044
>http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/forsvarets_materielverk__fmv/pressreleases/stark-milstolpe-av-gripenprojektet-258602
That source says absolutely nothing about flyaway cost, and isn't referencing the Gripen NG, but the previous version JAS-39C/D.
>>29451871
Source for that 100m+ flyaway price tag for Gripen NG. It's actually MORE expensive for Sweden than it is for the Swiss. Hilarious.
http://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/svensk-gripen-e-pastas-dyrare-an-schweizisk-6404589
>>29451898
There should be a document included.
The batch delivered in 2008 was less then 30 million. I can see if ill find another source.
Dumping pics
>>29451871
>>29451898
By the way, the JAS-39C/D lacks:
>AESA radar
>two fewer hard points
>far shorter legs (shorter combat radius than an F-35B, and 2/3 the combat radius of an F-35A/C on internal fuel)
>less powerful engine
compared with the Gripen NG.
>>29448202
>I was only pretending to be retarded
Maybe you actually are retarded, friendo
>>29451917
Calling bullshit on that one. And the fact that the Swiss decided not to buy the Gripen so that means nothing.
h-hey guys.... c-can I play too?
>>29451841
I generally think of South Korea and Japan as Western, at least in terms of defense equipment.
West = US, NATO, S. Korea, Japan, Aus, Israel.
East = Soviets/Russia, China etc...
Eastern Europe is fun because in several cases you have Soviet and derived equipment being operated by members of NATO.
>>29451966
Frigg off m8.
![268[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LZYThEU.jpg "268[1].jpg")
>>29451966
>>29451922
You do that.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf
According to this source:
http://saab.com/id/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen/newsandpress/gripen-news-feed/saab-receives-serial-production-order-for-gripen-e-to-sweden/
It costs 43m per aircraft just to upgrade a JAS-39C to Gripen NG/JAS-39E standards.
>>29451963
Then provide a contrary source. It's right there in my source.
>>29447536
Saab?
It's what you do after buying one
I do so love it when low-info memeshitters get absolutely facefucked by that one anon who shows up with good sources and an actual understanding of the subject.
>>29452020
>It costs 43m per aircraft just to upgrade a JAS-39C to Gripen NG/JAS-39E standards.
kek. it costs almost 1.5x more than >>29450820 claimed an entire Gripen cost just to upgrade one to latest standards.
>>29452051
>that one anon who shows up with good sources and an actual understanding of the subject
I'm guessing that anon isn't you.
>>29452071
Nope. SUW USN guy here. I love to read about the latest aviation platforms, but I don't pretend to be super well informed about them.
>>29452067
That is because the Gripen E is a compleatly different aircraft. Only like 5% of the Gripen C would be used in the upgrade. The rest would have to be newly produced anyway.
So "upgrading" them is retarded, and that deal is cancelled. FMV has recived permission to buy new ones insted hoping to sell the Gripen Cs.
>>29452020
That contract is revoced. The plan is now to produce new aircraft.
>>29452116
>Only like 5% of the Gripen C would be used in the upgrade.
It clearly states in the source that they're upgrading all 60 of Sweden's JAS-39Cs to NG standard. You were saying?
>>29452129
Source?
>>29451409
Cause it does a lot more than that Grip pos retard.
>>29452116
Do you have a source for this contract cancelling?
Also, this still does not change the fact that in a dollar per kg comparison, there are only three tactical fighter aircraft in the world more expensive than a Gripen: Typhoon, Rafale and F-22. Even the F-35 is less expensive in LRIP in this metric, which is one of the industry baseline comparisons for fighter cost vs capability (scales well to aircraft range, payload and mission flexibility).
>>29452147
>>29452135
Cant find it now on my phone, but there is a swedish document on Riksdagens webpage stating it during Försvarsbeslut 15.
Flyaway doesent really mean anything unless you calculate FH cost and how long the aircraft is going to be operated.
>>29452212
Did a quick look about on google, couldn't find it. Post it later?
>>29452234
This is true but even more difficult to nail down than flyaway costs. O&S costs are extremely difficult to nail down for any one platform with any degree of surety. For instance, the USAF, DoD and GAO ALL provide numbers differing by as much as 45% depending on which aircraft on cost per flight hour estimations, and all three ostensibly have access to all the same public domain and classified documents. Same story with Sweden, GB, Germany and France, with what portions they respectively make public. Throw in "investigative journalist" numbers and the data field goes from chaos to bloody carnage.
As a US taxpayer, I'd LOVE to get reasonably accurate numbers on this, but the fact of the matter is that many costs go to multiple programs (for instance, what airframe does the cost of training/paying a flight deck grape or brown shirt etc go to? how is it split up when they handle ALL USN carrier aircraft? There are literally hundreds of these approximations made in an O&S/cost per flight hour calculation). It's not all nefarious obfuscation but incredibly complicated program cost trees being evaluated by people that do not, in fact, have direct experience with what it takes to keep them flying.
>>29452319
TLDR: Don't trust single-source cost-per-hours estimates. EVER. If you have to come up with a ballpark, collect as many sources as possible and then make your own weighted average after accounting for bias, document access (classified AND public or just public with some interviews) and actual operations familiarity.
None of this is anywhere close to as simple as /k/ believes it is.
stealth is such a shitty meme. just take the technology from the f-22. there's nothing right now that beats it.
russia and china copying the f-35. that's the only reason there's competition. you fucks are SO STUPID. fucking artificial arms race that can justify paying several billion dollars for a f-16 that has a firmware update.
>>29447536
The Gripen E/F (i.e. the Gripen NG) is $100 million per plane. It's not cheap anymore.
>>29451963
Then provide a source countering it douchebag.
>>29452404
>stealth is such a shitty meme. just take the technology from the f-22. there's nothing right now that beats it.
Production cost alone for the hand-applied RAM coating for the F-22 was CRIPPLING. The robot-applied coating costs a fraction, is more durable and far easier to maintain. Furthermore, the F-35 has RAM tape around panel access joins for far, far easier removal and reapplication during maintenance, again saving cost. The F-22 and to an even greater extent the B-2 have to spend time and cost approaching 50% of flight hour costs just maintaining RAM and reapplying it after maintenance, not even counting the cost of climate controlled hangars for B-2s (reducing basing flexibility as well). Furthermore, the F-22 coating is NOT naval conditions compatible, so the F-35C and F-35B would need different coatings anyway.
Suggesting that RAM materials have not advanced in composition, effectiveness or production/application/maintenance ease is retarded and ignorant.
Suggesting that "stealth" or VLO features encompass only RCS is retarded and ignorant.
Suggesting that Russia or China are producing as their first production fighters VLO features on par with a country which has had operational tactical manned VLO aircraft since 1983 and is on it's 4th manned production VLO airframe now is retarded and ignorant. No one gets everything perfect first time around.
>>29452486
>>29452486
the f-22s CIP and the sensor fusion it produced was far beyond just RCS. The F-22A has full stealth, unlike the F-35 which has a very good radar profile from the front, a less stealthy profile from the sides, and a least stealthy profile from the rear quarter. Supercruise is also a significant factor to any role, multi or not.
>>29452561
>The F-22A has full stealth, unlike the F-35 which has a very good radar profile from the front, a less stealthy profile from the sides, and a least stealthy profile from the rear quarter.
>>29447536
why not just buy used F-16s? Or if you have the money, buy an F-15. Boeing will play ball and let you use your euro avionics and engines. Euro Eagle. Screeeee. Here that? Its the sound of almost freedom.
>>29447536
pic
>>29452561
>the f-22s CIP and the sensor fusion it produced was far beyond just RCS.
Yet it doesn't even come close to the LPI, comms/sensor fusion and datalink capabilities in the F-35. Are you saying we should just stop developing new shit? Because that's beyond retarded.
>The F-22A has full stealth, unlike the F-35 which has a very good radar profile from the front, a less stealthy profile from the sides, and a least stealthy profile from the rear quarter.
Once again for the short bus, "stealth" or VLO is NOT just RCS. IR signature, LPI emissions in all bands, passive sensor capabilities, even radiated noise reduction all play parts. And the F-35 kicks the shit out of the F-22 in all these areas. As for RCS, there I'd love to see a source for your claim that isn't RT or Sputnik. Gen Hostage has claimed multiple times that the F-35 has comparable to better all aspect RCS, and NEITHER of the planes come close to the B-2 in L-band RCS reduction.
>Supercruise is also a significant factor to any role, multi or not.
Expand this and justify it if you can. Include examples of why:
>it is more necessary than range and loiter time in CAS
>it is more necessary than range in interdiction
>it is more necessary than payload and range in strike
>it is more necessary than range in naval aviation CAP
Who can stop Lockheed?
>>29452769
parasites shouldn't kill their hosts, the problem with lockmart is that they are sucking the USA dry, and it might have worked with neocon policies of the 00's, but there will not be that kind of money in the 20's
Trump will stop Lockheed btw, because his administration will not allow a monopoly market without competitors.
>>29452866
This site is 18+.
![delayed[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ukF4AN3.jpg "delayed[1].jpg")
>>29447536
Article from 2002:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avgrpn.html
>An electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar based on the PS-05/A, now being developed by Ericsson. An AESA consists of an array of programmable "transmit-receive (TR)" modules that can operate in parallel to perform separate or collaborative functions, performing, for example, jamming and target acquisition at the same time. The AESA will provide enhanced multimode capabilities, as well as extended range for beyond visual range missiles. It is scheduled for introduction in the 2005:2010 timeframe.
The Gripen is still expensive even for third world shitholes
I'm talking about most Latin American countries, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and the more affluent African countries
>>29449170
>Underrated post: the movie
>>29452650
i'll say that if you can break the mach in mil/dry thrust, it allows you to throw an AMRAAM further via loft while still minimizing your IR signature.
it's useful but not be-all end-all
>>29455197
>it allows you to throw an AMRAAM further via loft while still minimizing your IR signature.
This is true. However, note that none of the mission profiles I mentioned in my post include this as a core plus save naval fleet CAP.
>>29452866
>Trump
I don't even want to fucking know what he'll do, he'll probably go full retard with the BRRT meme.
>>29451576
>b-but Gripen is the pinnacle of Swedish engineering!
Totally cucked
>>29455671
She's a superslut.
>>29451139
REKD!
>>29447536
>gripen
>using f404
>>29451601
A lot of these are standardized parts and would be completely economically stupid to build your own. Kinda like making your own nuts and bolts when building a house.
Sweden has always used american and british parts; guess why?
>>29456975
Nice... i never knew the plane had such big bombs...
>>29452461
Well, you also have to take other variables into consideration, such as maintenence, flight cost, training, repairs, cost of building and operating necessary systems, willingness to counterpurchases and domestic production.
>>29449123
Right, I'm sure you know all about designing a fucking jet airplane
the sheer amount of people who talk out their ass yet have no experience in the avionics industry is mind boggling
I mean at this point most detractors on this board were shitting their drawers when the raptor was in development
t. someone who actually did diag tests
>>29457793
for you
>>29447536
Wanting a plane with minimal support. Swedish AF doesn't buy enough aircraft to maintain huge stockpile of spares and Sweden can't deliver more aircraft at relatively short notice. Not to mention that they are tied by US and Brits allowing exporting due to tons of US and British components.
>>29451005
F/A-18 is latest US fighter shot down by enemy fighter. It's combat proven.
>>29447536
SAAB is pretty desperate to sell this aircraft. Even India didn't want that despite the sweet deal about helping India develop their own aircrafts for atleast the next 100 years.
>>29451677
RIP Avro Arrow.
>>29449170
>>29460508
Gripen and F-16 were too light for Indian requirement. Especially Gripen had problem with LCA, too close to same weight class and being a risk for funding of said development hell.
Saab is getting fucked due to their size. They are simply too small. Swedish air force doesn't order hundreds of planes anymore and most of their export deals have been rather small.
>>29460485
Oh, Vatnik. Do we really want to compare combat records between Western and Soviet/Russian airframes? Because there's not a single one with a positive K/D ratio. The only reason the Su-27 is better than even currently is because it was shooting down other Soviet designs.
>>29460508
SAAB is making enough money as it is in software and subsystems, and the Gripen project was turned profit the day the first Gripen left the factory. Right now, any sales is money in the pocket, simple as that.
They churned out a Viggen every day without being under any sort of pressure at all, so that's not really true either. Sure, it was a long time ago, but if they need too, they can do it.
>>29461068
>Oh, Vatnik.
Just stating the fact makes someone vatnik.
>>29461356
No. Stating a deliberately misapprehended response (conversation about super hornet, references hornet) in typically second-language English with Slavic primary influences (article dropping) makes you a Vatnik.
Deal with it.
![saab-900-turbo-5-624x432[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Yw9F7a7.jpg "saab-900-turbo-5-624x432[1].jpg")
>Shitbox Saab that can barely even drive, let alone fly
Team Evo desu
>>29457813
You also have to take into account that it's less future-proof and less capable than some of its main competitors.
>>29462020
T005XY ftw; dentists btfo
>>29462138
>tfw I legit have a CE lancer that's faster than TOO5XY
>I've got the 1.8L while Marty's got the 1.5L
>Since his isn't making any boost it doesn't matter anyway
They're honestly actually genuinely good cars. If people didn't rice the shit out of them all of the time they'd probably be more popular.
>>29461068
To be fair the airframe itself isn't the only factor involved.
>>29451744
"American parts. Swedish parts. All made in Taiwan!"
