What does /k/ think about the JAS 39 Gripen?
>>23188512
Gripen is a badass motherfucker.
It's a useless piece of Swedish garbage.
>>23188559
>>23188560
Please give me the reasons why you think the way you do.
>>23188525
>>23188512
in the top ten of sexiest planes
but unfortunately russia stronkest
>>23188567
I didn't see any Sweden yes thread on pol before and i felt like taking it out on someone that i presume to be Swedish.
>>23188605
You are a faggot, please leave.
>>23188567
>>23188512
Good aircraft for countries who can't afford real planes.
>>23188512
A Swedish offspring between an F-16 and a MiM-104 SAM system considering the very poor range of the Gripen.
Other then that, a nifty plane.
>>23188578
>this is what slavbros actually think
Brazilian thread detected...
Sai daqui, seu macaquinha sapeca!!!! >:3
>>23188512
Not worth it, especially the NG.
>>23188939
I'm Swedish actually.
>>23188512
Block 30 F16 outperforms it in every aspect.
I expect better from you Sweden.
>>23188960
>I'm Swedish actually.
I feel bad for you.
>>23188991
Please digress.
>>23188985
Yeah, there's a reason why the plane sucks so hard, you see my dad worked at SAAB when they were designing this aircraft, and the Gripen that we have now isn't what they originally designed. The politicians decided that they wanted an as cheap, and affordable aircraft as possible, so they had to cut down on pretty much everything, just to meet the price tag the politicians wanted. It was originally planned to have two engines for example.
>>23189061
Yes, but even with the NG upgrade, it's still not on par with old F-16... sad.
>>23188512
It's ok as a sort of mid-market jet fighter. It isn't as good as a eurofighter, but it's a lot cheaper. It's sort of comparable to the Dassault Rafale.
The upgraded version using the GE 414 will be a considerable improvement. Also, I think they're planning on making the upgraded version carrier capable. This version would get closer to the performance of the FA 18.
>>23188960
>>23188960
Oh, my bad then... Gripen is a good plane. Gets the job done.
>>23189076
LMIDF please go
>>23189136
What does "LMIDF" mean? I'm OP and this is also my first time on /k/
>>23189101
>It's sort of comparable to the Dassault Rafale.
Eurofighter and Rafales are sort of comparable.
Not Gripen and Rafale.
You must be American, am i right ?
Pic related, the Swiss evaluation results to replace their old F-5
>>23189156
Swiss results are obselete as shit.
Gripen isn't on a level with Typhoon and Rafale, you are correct, but the Swiss tests are not something worth bringing up. It'd be the same tier as still claiming the F-22 is asphixiating people.
I'd recommend it if all the action it would see would be these NATO mini wars
Well, as I'm from Sweden, you can guess what I think of it....
>>23189156
>>23189166
The funny thing is that the Gripen has outsold the rafale, even though the Rafale outperforms it.
>>23189195
I know. It's fucking hilarious.
>>23188512
Sexy beast. Past that, I have no idea.
I assume it can't into stealth. I also assume it doesn't have any sort of magical radar. I further assume it can't outhandle >>23188578 or out-thrust it/the F-15.
So in the end it's a very cute toy, and the one fighter I would buy if I was buying planes for the lulz.
>>23189156
>Pic related, the Swiss evaluation results to replace their old F-5
F-5 seems like a good comparison if one is familiar with it. I imagine low maintenance as well.
>>23189203
>>23189195
Its good value for the money. Cheap to fly in comparison.
>>23189191
Jag är också svensk, men jag tycker att JAS 39 är skit. Och den där bilden är rätt så efterbliven.
>>23189195
Yeah but you not fooling Swiss people, they vote against the Gripen. As a result, they keep their old F-5 shit.
>>23189195
It's not funny, it's sad
Rafale is unsellable
>>23189256
The Swiss realized that they can rely on others to do the defending for them.
>>23189195
I can't into Europoor fighters. I know someone wants to summarize all three for me. Feel free to compare to burgerboo shit and slavshit.
>>23189263
I heard Rafale "won" in many countries like South Korea, but 'Muricans don't let them buy the Rafale and they sold them their F-15, F-16 and shit
>>23189287
You heard french people whining.
>>23189338
No, i'm not even french
>>23189351
I never even insinuated that you are.
>>23189207
>I also assume it doesn't have any sort of magical radar.
Actually it does have a radar system, top of the line radars actually.
>>23189358
It's just that i love military aircarfts, and i read a lot about them, and i've read a lot that Rafale is one of the best aircarfts, not as good as 5th generation of course, but here on /k/ there's too much people hating the Rafale, that's boring
>>23189287
They didn't even come close to winning in South Korea. I don't know if they even seriously tried. It came down to Typhoon, F-35 and F-15SE. F-35 won.
Rafale has a big chance in India, if they ever get the contract signed, but thats it. They have talks with UAE and Qatar, because they are very Franco heavy countries for kit, but it's worldwide ability is hilariously awful because they throw baby out the pram whenever they lose and never seem to realise their problems. Their official release from losing in Brazil was kek worthy, /k/ tier damage control.
>>23189398
We don't hate the Rafale. We hate Dassault for the absolute cockmonsters they are. Rafale is a good plane, but Dassault and Frogfags try to act like it's the second coming better than everything else or something when it's plainly not and costs an unbelievable amount of money. Dassault even dicks over their own country to try and squeeze that plane out, refusing Brimstone because "not French enuf" or forcing AASM to stay exclusive to Rafale only by contract and not letting them export it.
>>23189136
>>23189153
Well.. on here IDF = Internet Defense Force (or Israeli Defense Forces).
LM = Lockheed Martin.
I'm the one saying the Gripen is sad btw.
It's a neat little bird, but it seriously needs some better upgrades than just what NG is proposing.
>>23189439
I'm Swedish and i agree. See>>23189061
They need to at least put a new engine in the plane.
The Gripen is a cheap plane that does okay. But that's it. You would be smarter to purchase F-16s. You would get better performance for a comparable price tag.
>>23189439
>>23189464
The NG does get a new engine.. but they should have picked a bigger one and gave the the Gripen a glorious ass.
>>23189464
They need to stop wasting my motherfucking tax kronas on that airplane. Sweden doesn't even need it, just kill every single person/sheep on Gotland and stuff every square meter of that shitty island full of SAMs and when it detects Putin flying over just fire everything.
>>23189506
Don't get me wrong, the JAS 39NG is a good improvement. But I think they could have done more.
>>23189061
Doesn't actually suck very bad at all, it's a very competent machine. The F-16 is a much larger aircraft, which makes it fairly obvious that it's going to be able to carry more weapons more efficiantly. It's very easy to conclude things based on specs that isn't true, and when looking at fighter jets, you must consider the entire plane rather than parts of it. This makes it very hard to compare different planes unless you have direct access to both of them and make ALOT of testing.
For instance, the radar in the F-16C has a slightly longer range than the PS05 in the Gripen, but since the frontal RCS of the gripen is so small, it will detect a MIG-29 60km before its detected by the counterpart. An F-16 will detect a Mig29 5km before the counterpart does. You also need to practically compare the IRIS-T to the Aim-9x, the datalinks in each aircraft (the datalink of gripen is suberb).
It would be very interesting if hard facts from exercises (like Red Flag) would be available to scrutinize, but sadly they aren't. However, it seems to me that swedish gripens came out on top against norweigan F-16s, though of course this is also hard to deduce.
>>23189516
>Путин drops one TacNuke on Gotland, Su-25's have fun gun running SAAB cars.
>>23189534
Yeah, it's not complete shit, but it's far from what had originally been planned (and requested by the military).
>>23189560
Good luck finding a fucking SAAB car today Ivan.
>>23189575
>>23189560
>MFW my family has a SAAB
>>23189593
I hope they're not planning on selling it.
>>23189516
On the contrary, countryman. We need more Gripen jets, in addition to long-range SAM systems.
When the war comes, Gripen will not disappoint, I assure you.
>>23189611
Nope, we're keeping that thing until it completely breaks down, and the turbo has already broken once.
>>23189365
I know it has radar, but "top of the line"? It has to be pretty small and low power given the dimensions of the aircraft, even if it's quality.
Expecting 1-2 sales win per year for C/D and E models. Countries want latest tech with affordable cost, meaning Gripen has basicly no competition in the world.
>>23189593
>mfw i have a 430hp -96 SAAB 9000
>>23189664
lol why
>>23189686
Also "lol how." Unless you have a fuck-hueg turbo with a TON of lag.
>>23189686
It's basically a toy to play around with. My friend tuned it as a project, and gave it to me when he started his next project.
>>23189639
See my former post, >>23189534
ITT: cowadoody /k/ids who dont know the gripen was designed specifically to fit a country's specific needs, yet are comparing it to other aircraft with totally different design requirements.
applestooranges.jpg
>>23189534
>>23189711
Good post.
>>23189732
>Comparing fighter jets against fighter jets, is comparing apples to oranges.
Yeah, the question isn't for which purpose they had in mind for it, it's how well can it compare in combat.
>>23189756
Not that guy, but it actually is. You have to look at tactical capabilities, and what such capabilities are more suitable to a specific country. It's not a question about which plane outperforms the other in BVR XX cases, but rather what plane can do what under different circumstances. The best plane for the US or UK is not the best choice for Brazil or whatever.
Never been big on planes, but I find the Gripen absolutely majestic.
It is quite a bold claim to say that Gripen E will cost less to operate than the current gen Gripen
>>23188512
A small, cheap plane for people who can only afford small, cheap planes. It's the honda civic of western planes.
>>23189756
exactly, still, every country has different combat requirements. For instance the Gripen was designed to be used on short, makeshift runways, whereas other countries might not need that capability as much, if at all.
>>23189803
Gripen is sex. I don't think anyone will argue that.
Past that, if people want to argue, they need to pick 2 comparisons (I assume F-16 and MIG-29 variants were chosen) and start comparing cost and performance with hard numbers.
Except good fucking luck getting:
1. Exact cost (have fun sifting through DoD balance sheets and adjusting for inflation)
2. Turn rates.
3. Exact radar data.
>>23189803
hnng
Fellow swedenbro here. I live in Luleå, kinda close to the F-21 airbase. Sometimes, pilots fly low over the forest behind my block and i hear the roar of the engine as they gun the afterburner.
I kinds miss the now-dead tradition of "Flying christmas tree" they used to do every December. Last time they did that was in '09 (i think), and that was after five years absence and a quite large public disapproval. But, as all good things in the Swedish armed forces, it was cut yet again due to budget restraints.
>>23189136
It was General Dynamics first, fuckstick.
>>23189655
The NG is set to cost over $100 million per air frame.
>>23189793
The Brazilians wanted the Super Hornet, but we wouldn't give them full production rights. The Swedes gave full production rights (which was fucking foolish), which is by far the biggest reason they won the contract.
>>23190354
Well there went it's "low price" sales pitch.
Might as well go buy some Super Tacos and arm them with AMRAAMS
>>23188512
The Gripen makes my dick hard anon.
>>23190370
... will Brazil be exporting their Gripen versions?
BRAZ-39 and BRAZ-39 HUE
>>23190370
The gripen is a better plane than the super hornet. Hell, even the original hornet performs better in A2A than its successor. No reason to pick a super hornet over say, an F-15 unless you really need carrier capability.
>>23190291
Så dom har kvar Viggen?
Perhaps not the best fighter, but i can promise you all that when IVAN comes they will stand there and give dem russians some sweet sweet Swedish hard steel.
>>23190571
Finns endast ett flygbart viggenplan kvar, och det står i min vetskap på F7 Såtenäs.
>>23190577
>ivan
>coming
Ivan doesn't come, despite popular belief. Ivan buys your chain of command and starts revolutions.
>>23190571
Bilden är från sista gången Viggen flög i julgran (vad jag vet iaf)
>>23190489
Super Hornets are better at short takeoff and landing and are more adaptable across roles than the F-15. And no, the Gripen is not a better aircraft than the Super Bug.
>>23190648
It's cheaper though, both in production costs and maintenance.
>>23190662
Not really. In 2014 $, the Gripen has a unit cost of ~$81.29 million. The Super Hornet has a flyaway cost of ~$60.9 million ($80.7 million including support costs).
>>23190984
It depends on what version of Gripen.
>>23191001
That's the C. Fact is that the claim that the Gripen is actually low cost is a myth.
>>23190648
the F15 is still a way better air superiority fighter and strike aircraft
>>23191023
You should include lifetime flying costs at projected flight hours
The Grippen is nothing more than an overpriced F16 block 60
>>23191101
Not really. The E is fairly different from the C/D F-15. A Super Hornet is a good do-all type aircraft. It can easily do a2a, a2g, electronic warfare, and even buddy tanker duties with ease.
>>23191306
No. Because that is almost completely dependent on the military using them, not the actual aircraft.
In Canada we have a big hooboo about the F35 program.
I ask you, since Sweden is also cold. Would the Grippens fare well for Canada's arctic, anti russian and very broad border needs?
>>23191630
Probably, since we both have pretty much the same weather/climate.
>>23191630
Yes it would. And you can get 14 JAS 39 Gripen for roughly the same price as 4 F-35.
>single engine
you dun goofed
>>23191753
That's not true.
>>23191805
> being this abjectly stupid
>>23191805
see>>23189061
It's basically an aircraft designed by politicians.
>>23191830
>being this abjectly stupid
Implying. Single engines are always undesirable. It's another reason why Lightning II sucks unreasonable amount of balls
>>23191630
I'd rather see us get Dassault Rafales.
>>23191896
>Rafale
Yeah good luck getting any. The French can't even get the Indian contract right.
A cancellation is on the cards on that one.
>>23191896
Why would you want us to buy literally the most expensive aircraft on the list that doesn't even have a BVRAAM yet, can't use any of our existing munitions and comes with the problem of an extremely unreliable production line of super expensive parts for maintainence?
It's like you WANT us to fuck our own budget over.
>>23191862
Completely and totally wrong. Kill yourself.
>>23191896
You guys all realize Canada would have to be basically rebuild their logistics from scratch right? It wouldnt save as much money as you all think it would.
>>23191862
Not really, engines are much more reliable nowadays, engine failures is extremely rare, even nonexistant in modern aircrafts. FADEC really puts in work. I remember reading that the gripen platform has flown 150k flight hours with no engine failures or malfunctions. And even if the engine blows, the hornets and gripens alike are able to limp back home using the AMAD or APU. Having two engines just because of reliability is very redundant and very 1970s.
>>23191979
Then you're talking from your rectum. Good day sir
>>23189516
I prefer if we spent less on immigrants and more on JAS. Them russian amphibious craft aint gonna destroy themselfes
>>23189227
Except we already know that's a bullshit metric. The CPFH they provide there is inconsistent, they use the total CPFH for the F-35 and only the maintenance+sustaining support for the others. If you apply the same metric to the F-35, it comes out to $13,000/hr.
http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/F-35-2013-SAR.pdf#page=94
>>23191995
You're not limping back home on anything if you lose you're one and only engine, especially not in the Gripen.
Even the Hawk with a half decent glide ratio, gets about 25 minutes of range from 30K+ after it loses it's engine.
I suspect the modus operandi would be akin to the Typhoon, which is pull the yellow and black.
>>23189256
>>23189283
Well, what I read is that we, the swiss, voted against the Gripen because we either want a better fighter or a proven Gripen. This better fighter might have been the Rafale or something that does not exist yet. The problem with the Gripen was that we evaluated the old versions and not the one we'd buy. The swiss support the idea of having an independent army, why would we let the EU protect us? Or NATO? Look at the Ukraine, Syria, Libya... nobody except you yourself will stand up for your problems.
>>23192002
Jag vill att vi ska ta alla pengar som vi satsar på kolonisationen, och satsar det på att döda blattar istället.
>>23191996
Fuck off summerfag. You're nigger-tier "argument" has been ripped to shreds for literally decades.
