What's /k/'s opinion on Gripen E-version that is being released?
>>30605289
"UK Empire"
>>30605289
What's the difference between the Gripen-NG and the Gripen-E ?
>>30607429
Gripen NG is just the project name.
Gripen-E = Single seat version of the Gripen NG.
Gripen-F = Two seat version of Gripen NG.
>>30605289
It is the best air-to-air fighter in the world at the moment, simply because it is the only plane that is currently able to use the MDBA Meteor air-to-air missile.
>>30608045
>What swedecucks actually believe
>>30608045
>he fell for the maximum range engagement meme
>>30605289
Care to provide a comparison with previous Gripens?
>>30607420
Not inaccurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Test_Pilots%27_School
My opinion is that it looks sweet.
Low maitance cost and rugged design means it is ideally suited for the market Saab is going after: former 2nd world countries and South American nations. With a modern radar and the meteor, it can shoot down almost any plane at the moment to.
>>30605289
Would be a good plane if it was 10 years ago, now technology has move on.
Also it's on the expensive side, in the same price range as F-35A but not as capable. It's probably a good choice for countries that can't buy F-35A.
>>30610272
>Same price range as F-35A
You fucked up, go back to lurking
>>30610315
100 million and 85 million are pretty damn close.
I'd say the F-35A has more than 15 million worth of additional capability over Gripen NG.
>>30610411
You're not accounting for maintenance and upgrading capability, the Gripen is the way cheaper alternative unless you're buying new planes every 10 years
>>30608045
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dAmfVlcbp4
>>30608045
>It is the best air-to-air fighter in the world at the moment
>>30611232
>>30611210
>>30609557
>>30609530
Note the lack of an actual refutation.
The Meteor makes the Gripen the best air-to-air fighter. Period. That will change when the Meteor eventually is integrated into the F-35, but until then, Gripen is number 1.
>>30611564
Can't refute a baseless assertion
>>30611564
Yes, because the missile is all that matters, nevermind top speed, combat radius, cost per unit, cost per hour of flying time, ECM, stealth, radar, or anything else that actually makes a plane good.
you fookin tosspot
Why does anyone on /k/ hate the Gripen?
It's the little engine that can. The brave outsider among the giant power planes.
Cheer it on.
>>30611637
Being able to reliably engage (and kill) opposing aircraft at a distance is the most important factor for an air-to-air engagement.
>>30611747
the missile being a small part of that puzzle.
>>30611564
I'm sorry bub,but max stand off engagements between aircraft have absolute dog shit Kpa. Detection and Evading detection are THE most important aspects of air warfare.
You have to get radar lock to shoot that missile,so if you cant get a lock you can use that long reach and whilst that wimpy eurocuck radar searches in vain for a F-22 it already has its ass in a sling and is launching a passive attack with an AIM-120,pray to god its alone,because LPI mid course updates from another F-22 will virtually guarantee a kill
>>30611757
How are you gonna shoot down other planes without a missile? Ram them?
>>30605289
It totally eliminates the main attraction of the Gripen, which was a much lower acquisition cost. The E/F are ~$100 million a pop, which is way too much for what you get and compared to the competition.
>>30611564
That's not how aerial combat works you dense nigger.
>>30611828
The biggest advantage that Meteor has is its massive no-escape-zone. Older missiles like the AIM-120 lose a lot of energy and speed as they travel, making it unlikely that they would actually get a BVR against a maneuvering target. The Meteor different. The Meteor uses a ramjet to retain energy so it will still be going very fast as it closes in on the target. That makes it nearly impossible to dodge, and it limits the amount of time that the aircraft might have to jam the missile.
>>30610473
The Gripen inherently has a much shorter useful life as a serious front-line fighter compared to the F-35.
>>30611907
Missiles are rather important for aerial combat these days.
>>30611747
Doesn't the Meteor not fit in the internal weapons bays of the F-35 though (or F-22 for that matter)? In that case, it's 'relegated' to being used only on non-stealth fighters or stealth fighters in "day 2" configurations.
>>30611889
How are you going to employ your missile against a target that is VLO and you aren't aware exists?
>>30612002
Good job intentionally ignoring the overwhelming majority of factors taken into account in aerial warfare as well as the basic principles of physics.
>>30612011
The Meteor was designed to mimic the dimensions of the AIM-120 from Day 1. If the AIM-120 fits inside the F-35, then the Meteor should fit in just as well. There is no issue there.
>>30605289
It's a nice F-16 Block 60 competitor.
>>30611679
It fills the space the f-5 did in the cold war
/k/ is just tired of the gripen better than f-35 perry shills meme.
>>30612053
Just based on the length and diameter, I think you're right.
>>30612070
F-16V is the new hotness.
>>30612021
Stealth doesn't mean invisibility. It just makes it a lot harder. It's a great advantage, but the most important factor is still whether or not you can actually kill the target reliably. If the F-35's ability to fight BVR will be handicapped so long as it is using outdated missiles like the AIM-120. Once the F-35 gets the MBDA Meteor integrated, it will be a true killer. The only question is when that will happen. Right now, they're having lot's of problems with the F-35's software so it could be a while.
>>30611983
And it requires a radar lock on and thus is limited by the ability to DETECT the enemy.
So the Radar,Stealth and EW suites trumps missile ranges all damn day
>>30612113
Theres this other aircraft out there made by the same company, you know
F-22?
Might have heard of it?
>>30612113
>AIM-120D
>AIM-9X
>Outdated
You know how I know you're full of shit?
>>30612113
The AIM-120 isn't outdated dipshit.
>>30612142
Does the F-22 have the Meteor integrated yet?
>>30612158
>The AIM-120 isn't outdated
Compared to the MBDA Meteor, the AIM-120 is very obsolete. Sorry.
>>30612187
>Does the F-22 have the Meteor integrated yet?
Doesn't need to.
posting BELKA MASTERRACE FIGHTERS.
SWEDEKEKS A SHIT.
SCANDANVIAN CALIPHATE A SHIT.
GRIPEN A SHIT
SAAB WILL NEVER BE AS GOOD AGAIN.
>>30612187
>Compared to the MBDA Meteor, the AIM-120 is very obsolete. Sorry.
Sure...If you're only comparing the AIM-120C, not D.
>>30612187
No it's not you dumb fucking nigger. If range is the only thing that matters to you (which is obviously the case for inbreds like yourself), then the Meteor itself is already out-ranged by other air-to-air missiles.
>not just selling all your planes, SAMs, tanks, submarines, ships, infantry and everything and just replacing your entire military with MBDA Meteors
>2016
>>30612205
Why would you want to handicap your best fighter by giving it inferior missiles?
>>30612242
Why would you want to fly a plane that's already dead before it even knows there's an F-22 anywhere near it?
>>30612242
>best fighter
Thanks for admitting it
:)
>>30612242
It doesn't need a 200-mile missile if it can get within a few kilometers of its prey without being detected.
>>30612230
Range is NOT the only thing that matters. What matters more is the NEZ or No-Escape-Zone. Because the Meteor is able to retain its speed, it is much more likely to kill a target at BVR distances. In past wars, it has been noted that most missile fired beyond-visual-range end up missing the target. The MBDA Meteor is going to change that. The MBDA will allow fighters to reliably engage (and kill) opposing aircraft from a distance. It's a whole new ball game.
>>30612311
Think of it this way:
If you had the world's best sniper on your side, would you give him a .22 or a .308?
Sure, he might be able to manage with the .22 but he won't do nearly as much damage as he could have done with the .308.
>>30612343
You understand that range doesn't mean shit if you can't/don't detect your target until it's already too late, right? And are you also aware that the stated range is a theoretical maximum based on a head-on engagement with no course deviation?
>>30612383
Bad analogy. Fact of the matter is that you're entirely focused on range and nothing else, which no pilot, trainer, or planner agrees with.
>>30612383
Range is irrelevant though because the F-22 can just close to whatever range is appropriate for its missiles
>>30612225
The AIM-120D is superior to previous AIM-120 models for sure. But unlike the MBDA Meteor, the AIM-120D still does not have a ramjet. That means that it won't be able to retain enough energy to reliably kill targets at long-range. A pilot who is stuck with using the AIM-120D will have to get much closer to the target before firing to ensure a reliable kill......and that could cost him his life.
>>30612383
You're directly implying that the AIM-120 and Meteor do a significantly different level of damage, which there is no evidence to support.
>>30612434
Why even take that chance though? If the F-22 gets too close to the opposition, it could be detected by IRST. It is much safer if the F-22 can just fire a missile at long-range and kill the enemy before they even know what is going on.
>>30612444
>Primary users will be Stealth fighters
>Implying they won't have free reign to pick and choose when to shoot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ7MwfcjCa0
>>30612475
The F-22 can already fire from several times the range at which it can be detected.
>>30612475
>It is much safer if the F-22 can just fire a missile at long-range and kill the enemy before they even know what is going on.
Which it can do at ranges approaching 200km with the AIM-120D. Its a non-issue.
>>30612411
>>30612449
Also consider this:
If your fighter is racing to intercept an opposing aircraft, then you want to kill the enemy aircraft as quickly as possible. Why? Because seconds matter if you're trying to intercept a bomber that is about to launch nuclear cruise missiles. You want to kill the bomber BEFORE it launches.
>>30612522
Your scenarios are outlandish and entirely focused on barely-credible air forces.
>>30612545
>intercepting a bomber is an outlandish scenario
wew lad
>>30612545
YOU DARE MOCK THE MIGHT OF BELKA?
BELKA STRONK
>>30612506
The AIM-120D has an operational range of 200 km, sure. But you're mad if you think it would actually be able to kill a maneuvering target at that distance. In practice, the pilot will have to get much closer before firing in order to ensure a reliable kill.
The MDBA Meteor is different because it retains speed throughout its flight path. So it doesn't matter if the target is 20 nmi away or 200 nmi away. The Meteor will find the target, and kill it.
>>30612556
Intercepting a bomber shooting a nuclear cruise missile at you is outlandish and is miles down the list of priorities.
>>30612595
>Shooting down a nuclear-armed bomber is a "low priority"
>>30612595
Not at YOU, cretin.
Launch in general.
>>30612580
It doesn't retain speed, it is just able to throttle. To say it retains speed all the way out to its extreme range is a moronic statement.
But that said, it doesn't actually matter. It doesn't get launched at that distance in practice because targets can maneuver and the missile have insufficient delta-v to intercept. If the target is completely unaware, it becomes far more possible.
>>30612636
>It doesn't get launched at that distance in practice because targets can maneuver and the missile have insufficient delta-v to intercept.
That was a real problem for older missiles like the AIM-120. The Meteor is much better able to achieve reliable kills at long-range because of how it works.
>>30612673
Correct.
But not because it "retains speed throughout its flight path". Thats just fucking wrong.
>>30612673
That extra range is a complete moot point if you cannot actually target the enemy fighter.
An f22 or f35 can close on a gripen undetected and shove some AMRAAMs up its ass using passive radar, and the gripen won't be able to do jack shit. He won't even know where the other plane is.
> range is all that matters
> AIM-54 is the best missile ever made.
>>30613017
Until the Meteor came along, that was probably true. The Navy never should have retired the Tomcat. Losing the Tomcat (and especially the Phoenix missile system that went along with it) has made the entire fleet much more vulnerable to aerial attack now.
>>30613071
Much like your narrow focus on range and its importance in air to air combat, the F-14s were retired for good reason despite they're good aspects.
>>30613200
The F-14 was retired because Cheney was a Hornet fanboy who was in bed with the Hornet Mafia. The F-14 was, and still is, the world's greatest naval fighter. It's range, speed, and weapons capabilities have not been matched.
>>30612383
That's a terrible analogy.
![Screen_Shot_2016_07_13_at_6_02_26_AM[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/c5zLn5V.png "Screen_Shot_2016_07_13_at_6_02_26_AM[1].png")
>>30612717
Why not? By maintaining a high airspeed throughout its flight it retains manoeuvring energy (delta V).
>>30613277
It was retired because a fighter that doesn't perform well in other roles and requires ~80hours maintenance per hour of flight doesn't go well with naval aviation.
>>30613335
The F-14 did fine in "other roles." It was a capable strike aircraft as well as an outstanding fighter/interceptor. There really was no sound explanation for why it was retired.
>>30613771
>There really was no sound explanation for why it was retired.
Insane maintenance costs.
>>30612717
>But not because it "retains speed throughout its flight path". Thats just fucking wrong.
Why? The Meteor uses a ramjet to maintain energy. So while other missiles like the AIM-120 are slowing down, the Meteor is still going strong. This makes it much less likely that a target will be able to dodge the missile and enables the pilot to engage targets from a greater distance.
You guys are really missing the point by trying to make this all about range. It's really about hit probability. Sure, the AIM-120D can theoretically kill at target at 200 km but in practice it will be going so slow by the time it travels that distance the target will easily be able to dodge.
The Meteor doesn't have that problem.
>>30613841
>Actually believing this lie
Fuck off Cheney
>>30611747
Detection systems are a more important piece of that puzzle.
>>30613071
The AIM-120D has returned better-than-Phoenix capability to the fleet. Seriously, the Phoenix was basically only able to kill dumb targets at max range.
>>30613277
The Tomcat was completely awesome.
It was also completely a too-expensive maintenance nightmare.
>>30614147
What good does it do to detect the other side if you cannot kill them?
>>30614195
The advantage of the Phoenix was that it had an airburst so big that even if it missed, it could still potentially kill the target. Hell, the Iranians even had cases where the missile was able to take out multiple aircraft in one explosion.
I agree that the AIM-120 is probably more likely to hit a maneuvering target, however, providing that the target is within the AIM-120's effective range.
>>30613771
The Super Hornet is far better in air to ground roles, is more than passable in air to air roles, can act as a small tanker for other aircraft, and acts as a platform for the new generation of carrier-based electronic warfare aircraft. It is a better all around plane.
>>30613915
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/you-thought-cooking-your-turkey-was-tough-try-maintain-1664041009
>The Turkey was such a maitenance hog Monroe "Hawk" Smith, who was just given the command of a Tomcat squadron replied the following when asked what it was like getting such an opportunity:
>I have two things I've always wanted most in life: I'm a Navy fighter pilot, and I own a junkyard.
>>30614588
>Slower
>Shorter ranged
>No Phoenix
>".....................Better......................."
>>30611564
Just because the missile can go as far and still hit a dodging target doesn't mean it will get the first shot opportunity anon. If the plane can't support the missile then its range is useless.
>>30614711
> all around
The F-14 was good at one thing.
>>30614757
Well, that's not true at all.
