Well guys, what a nice good old aviation chat!
All aviation companies perform test which in one way or another, favor their products. The real results are well hidden from the rest of us. But, when you see that Saab has redesigned the Gripen - and for sure this redisign isn't a light one - you can say that this company has recognised some drawbacks.
For me, Gripen would be a great fighter if it was to operate in an aviation world were no Flankers/Rafales/Ef2000/J10 existed.
Against the european competition Gripen lacks range, payload and maneuvrability. But it is cheaper and with the same money an airforce can field more units.
Against the Su-35 Gripen lacks in range, payload, maneuvrability, but it has superior avionics. In a few years, the Su-35 will get a good AESA and the bigger random will enable a dish with more elements.
The Mig-35, is also short ranged and lucks electronics.
J10? Comparable maneuvrability and better electronics for the Gripen.
FC1? No comparison for the Grippen.
The NG solved the range issue, it has better fuel fraction but :
the fuselage got thicker while the length remained the same. That means that the transonic drag characteristics has got worst.
More transonic drag plus bigger weight means that you need a bigger engine if it is to maintain the old Gripen's acceleration performance.
OK, the new engine is more powerful but the wing area remained unchanged. So the wing loading got worst. Thus the turning performance.......
You need good transonic performance in order to accelerate to a speed that enable the Meteor to be launched with highly kinetic energy and improve the chance to hit a Flanker.
Bottom line, i believe that the old Grippen is a better air to air and the new is a better air to ground.
I would prefer the F-35 as a bomber. For the same bomb load, the F-35 has less drag, is more stealthy and i believe it can fly faster.
I would feel better if there was 2 Gripen to protect Greece rather than 1 F-35.
Back to Index
Move to Top 
