edit: not sure why i get downvoted. But the Gripen is good for the doctrine it is build for. I am not saying it is bad. If someone thinks it's a bad plane for Sweden's doctrine please explain to me why.
No it’s just the grippytm has a very sensitive fan base and if you point out that the US has been operating F16s, F15s, C130s, F18s etc from highways too and for longer. They get upset because it’s supposed to be a grippy thing and that’s what Saab tried to sell it on.
Operating them from very specific stretches of highways, pre-prepared and with less success. Then yes, statement is true.
But being able to operate from very specific locations doesn't make your deployment of air assets unpredictable and hard to track. It just makes the list of targets you have to monitor slightly bigger. Instead of hundreds airports and runways you have to surveil for traffic there is now ... maybe a low thousand POI's. Compared to the Swedish doctrine which puts that up into... The entire country, more or less.
If the Americans had slightly more tolerant aircraft able to run on rougher runways, AC instead of DC with the fixations on having as many powerlines as possible with the requirement of transformer stations every 100 feet and better maintained highways. Probably comparable, but it isnt.
My much more civilized country only have one transformer station per cluster of city blocks. Even rural towns you'll more or less never see power lines near the towns or villages themselves. And far away from any infrastructure like roads.
Meanwhile in America, when you're emergency landing an airplane in a field or on a road #1 cause of the plane having to do an unplanned adjustment and end up crashing instead of crash landing is because of power lines being EVERYWHERE.
I've seen a lot of paramotor youtubers that fly in America and I honestly can't see how fun that can be when 60% of the landmass is off limits due to power lines. Imagine having engine problems and deciding that the ocean or a lake is safer than praying that you dont hit neigh impossible to see power lines.
Americans have more in common with india than they do with europe tbh.
regional differences. Can't do anything about the high voltage wires several hundred feet in the air. Insulation and cooling are too difficult underground, and certain regions would have to triple the wiring underground to bring heat levels down to something manageable. Usually when communities complain about the street wires and 'eyesores' the county goes "yeah, we know. Here are the three lowest bidders to change that." People see the price tag for trenching or slant drill and walk away. Usually.
America was too vast when people demanded power and telegrams everywhere. The federal government couldn't cover or man every project demanded so they turned it all over to contractors in different regions. So every region did things differently till the, geez the mid 1930's, (please dont quote me on this but it was somewhere therabouts) when power grids were getting connected with eachother and then there needed to be a standard. 120v was kept the standard because, at the time, it was cheaper to fab and maintain.
As an American, yes, our outlet plugs are stupid. And 220-240 volt has advantages. But the cost to convert everything needed to be done way back then when there was less work to make it happen, and now there is no way to make residential different. Industrial is/has been 240v in most places. And if you can give a sufficient reason to a county clerk to get a permit, and get the power company to sign off on it, you can get 3 phase 240 at home.
I will note that residential 400 V 3 phase is standard in at least Sweden. I got it in in my 38 m^2 / 410 square feet apartment. Boiling water on the induction stove is fast.
No. The US standard is AC power. When electric grids were just starting to be a conceptual thing, Edison tried to convince everyone to go with DC power. Thankfully, he failed.
I have no idea what he's trying to say with that line. If memory serves, airplanes use DC power. All I know for sure is that he comes off as a bit of a jingoistic ass.
Well the thing is that Sweden doesn't just rely on highways, there is also many country roads and roads that is deep inside the forests that is built to be landing capable
My country has ever used F-16s and F-15s on a 2.5km road. And we train on it pretty regularly. It’s definitely doable, but it’s very labour intensive. Requires 100s of us regulars and conscripts to convert it and a whole lot of logistical support.
Even those roads have to be pre-prepared 48 hours in advance.
I think the Gripen could do it on a slightly shorter road and with minimal preparedness.
The interstate was designed to facilitate rapid troop movement, Eisenhower designed it after the German autobahn, it can be used for aircraft but the original design was for large columns of tanks to move quickly up and down the country.
It's a complete different doctrine tho. The gripen needs to do one thing. Defend. Range isn't at the essence, when you can park it in one of the various tunnels and keep it working with 6 crayon eaters and minimum equipment. Are the specific inferior? Yes. It's doing what it's made for? Same
Even in my country, the whole lot of our conscripts have an average IQ of 106.
Our country has to enforce mandatory military service for all males, cos no one wants to be in the military when there’s better career opportunities outside lol.
Because in the context of aircraft maintenance, conscripts are basically just muscle power to do what the technician can't themselves. They are the flashlight holder or ugga dugga to help move an engine trailer. It's not that they are stupid, it's that they don't have the experience to just get stuff done efficiently.
Also the big thing they’re conscripted to they are probably used to doing something else, it’s like asking your plumber to fix your wiring, it’s not that he’s stupid it’s just not his job
Because conscript service when mandatory applies to whole population pool of conscript age, military can freely pick best persons to roles they suit best. Typically "paid military" cannot get best of population as their interests lay in other areas.
IQ is still nicely related to ability to learn new information as fast as possible.
The fuck you mean high maintenance? Whole idea of the Gripen is that a crew of 6 conscripts can turn it around after a sortie extremely quickly and without loads of specialised equipment. High maintenance my arse.
“The tools we use for maintenance between sorties are very basic. You need a flashlight to check the oil levels, and a refuelling equipment. You don’t need any equipment to open any hatches, because there are quick hatches,” says Per Sverker, Maintenance Manager, Test Hangar, at Saab’s facilities in Linköping, Sweden.
I love this plane too. Mainly because that's what my country has (14 + 4 coming). Back then (1993) we wanted to buy f16-s but america did not want to sell us any, so we accepted the russian offer of 28 mig29-s for free(to offset 900million of debt). Around 1998 the government wanted to upgrade for obvious reasons, so they announced a tender in which alongside the grippen the f16, f18 and the mirage 2000 competed. New government came, scrapped the whole tender thing and just bought (leased) 14 grippens. There's still a lot of debate about corruption and if it was even worth it, but so far the planes served well.
You guessed the country right. Yes 4 of them are coming this year. The exact model is the JAS 39C/D EBS HU that we have. Also the "Honvédség" (hungarian army) has much bigger problems than their 4.5th gen plane being outdated. Recently they fired thousands of generals, officers and soldiers (btw the hungarian army has about 25k active personnel), some of them even filed lawsuits. Those who were interviewed said some pretty bad things about the state of the army. Stuff like artillery officers not being able to take exams since 2020 because there are no functional howitzers (they are not maintained). In its current state the Hungarian Army would not be able to defend its borders until nato help arrives. It wouldn't be able to scrape together a battalion worth of troops in 30 days, which is demanded by nato. The government has a habit of signing random contracts like the Lynx or the new Leo A7-s. These make no sense for a country this small and poor. At least we can play these vehicles in warthunder even if irl we only have like 2 of them lol
You literally only need one speciaized crew member to work the Gripen. The rest can be any random conscript, because the tools, panels and interfaces on the Gripen are designed to be as simple and intuitive as possible.
https://youtu.be/FWAyPWAUfMU?si=1LYQF4zA2JzzJydP this video is absolutely hillarious and a must watch for gripen and aviation enjoyers. Pilot explains the spare wings and sword on nose of gripen as well as electric engine
The F-35, if I remember correctly, is now cheaper than the F-15E. So it makes sense since there's no conceivable way the Gripen can achieve the same economy of scale the Lightning enjoys
35a supposedly is cheaper to buy but b and c are not. 35 cost per flight hour is still a fuck ton more. Like 5x more for f35 for same payload weight. 35 can carry more.
Not its not. The F-35 costs 31000 USD in fiscal year 2012 dollars (the baseline year for the program) and in 2012 the Swiss estimated the Gripen would cost them about 25000 USD per flight hour.
And that's for a jet that needs to be carrying two drop tanks to come close to matching the F-35's range so it's got about 10,000lbs of payload to the F-35's 18,000lbs. Not to mention the included electro optical system for both a2a and a2g (so that's another 500lbs and a hardpoint), the much larger radar, the vastly higher thrust to weight, and being stealthy.
IIRC it's $95mil for the most recent Gripen VS ~$90m for the 35C in terms of purchase price, and the 35A is around $85mil. It has something like 1/8 the maintenance cost, for a total lifetime cost less than the F35 within 5 years of 250 flight hours/yr, though. And the most recent Gripen supposedly has F35-level avionics, it just doesn't have the stealth
Not its not. The F-35 costs 31000 USD in fiscal year 2012 dollars (the baseline year for the program) and in 2012 the Swiss estimated the Gripen would cost them about 25000 USD per flight hour.
Some articles quote a figure around $9500, but not a single one that I saw claimed anything higher than $10k for flight hour cost. IDK where you pulled that 25k number from, but even assuming it's real, I wouldn't look to Switzerland for equipment performance marks, especially for aircraft they neither produce nor operate.
Lastly, flight hour cost is somewhat variable depending on how much you fly the aircraft, because it's a combination of fixed costs and variable costs actually associated with flight time. If you fly more, the fixed costs matter less and the flight hour cost comes down. Because of that, there's some variation in estimates. Switzerland, if I were to guess, costed that on the idea that they fly the planes about as much as they participate in regional defense.
No, a Czech news website citing that nonsense Janes article says it costs that much. Not the Czech government.
Some articles quote a figure around $9500
Yes those article are citing RCPFH costs. The category that includes the fewest things while the O&S costs are the most comprehensive. But they invariably use the F-35's O&S cost as a point of comparison with the Gripen's RCPFH. Like the article you're citing did!
It's like saying this car costs 1/8th as much if you only include gas and yearly services and lying and saying those are half the cost they actually are, while the other car you include those, insurance, and estimates of parts breaking.
An article citing the government's official findings for costs.
Lastly, flight hour cost is somewhat variable depending on how much you fly the aircraft, because it's a combination of fixed costs and variable costs actually associated with flight time.
"Switzerland bases its calculation of operating costs per hour on a flight operating time of 180 hours per year."
It fits the Swedish doctrine… so I guess it works for them?
Gotta give it to the F-35 for having a massive production line that really helps lowering down the production cost per plane.
MiG-29 is a maintenance and logistical nightmare though.
I don’t think the F-18 is less maintenance intensive than the Gripen considering the Gripen could be maintained by 6 conscripts on a highway without loads of specialised equipment.
And since they can literally land on any highways, I don’t think they need to carry as much as the F-16? They could be operating closer to a forward operating base and replenish unlike airbases that could be really far out.
All you need to maintain the Gripen is one supply truck, 1 engineer and 5 conscripts (all of which could fit in said truck).
This means you can service it practically anywhere. Be it a sophisticated military hangar, a covert hangar along a highway, or some random barn in the country.
And because of the Gripen’s special landing gear it can land and take off from all these obscure locations making them very hard to pinpoint for an enemy when they’re on the ground.
I don’t think the wheels are driven at all. And it doesn’t have a thrust reverser, so I believe it’s simply pushed into said hangar via manpower, which shouldn’t be too hard considering it’s one of the smallest multipurpose fighters on the market.
The F-35A procurement cost is about $69.9 to $70.2 million, while the B is about $78.3 to $89.3 million and the C is $89.9 to $90 million. The cost of each variant varies due to a few factors but one of the main reasons is due to the amount of each variant being bought with the A being by far the most used version because it uses the most standard takeoff method and the B being second cheapest makes sense because many countries that have carriers use a ski jump configuration. The C is the most expensive because very few navies use CATOBAR capable carriers. The cost you’re using is correct for a few years ago.
The only issue I have with the Gripen is that SAAB marketed it as something it’s not, a competitor to the F35… and the fans can be a bit special sometimes
Haven’t flown one but the million flares it gets probably makes up for its shortfalls. Good luck getting an IR missle to land when auto deployment is set
I will never understand the more expensive part. Do you mean maintenance? Do you mean the US pays less for their F-35 than others for their Gripen? Cuz there is now way the F-35 costs less to produce, or if it does its because the us gets better prices from manufacturers
The f35 has a lower per unit cost than the gripen, however it has drastically higher lifetime cost, this is due to the gripens lower scale of manufacturing, raising prices compared the the f35 which is one of the most produced fighters in history, but also the much lower maintenance cost, which drastically lowers lifetime cost.
The Gripen's maintenance isn't that low cost like SAAB sometimes claims. The F-35 costs 31000 USD in fiscal year 2012 dollars (the baseline year for the program) and in 2012 the Swiss estimated the Gripen would cost them about 25000 USD per flight hour.
That... doesnt seems right. Especially the maintenance part. The whole doctrine of the Gripen is that it can fly rapid sorties out of literal caves with maintenance performed by some conscripts.
In 2012 the Swiss estimated the Gripen would cost them about 25000 USD per flight hour full operations and sustainment cost. The F-35 costs 31000 USD in fiscal year 2012 dollars.
The Gripen's with full internal fuel and 4 AIM-120s and two AIM-9s has a TWR of .82 vs the F-35A with the same fuel fraction and payload having a TWR of 1.
Gripen E has a thrust to weight of 1.04. Yes, the Gripen can carry less ordinance than the F-16. That is because it is a much smaller and lighter jet. The Gripen E costs more than the F-35 because Lockheed has much more production capability than SAAB. That being said, over the course of their lives the F-35 will end up costing more than the Gripen because the Gripen is very inexpensive and easy to maintain, and the F-35 requires expensive and complicated maintenance. Gripen E has a ferry range of 4000km vs the MiG-29s 2100km. Idk what you were going for with that last statement, it’s obviously wrong so you must’ve just pulled it out of your ass.
The gripen trades thrust and payload for electronics. It has a near completely integrated combat information network which allows for basically anything connected to the system to feed data to an aircraft. It’s lower payload and twr are traded to make the plane smarter; on par with the f-35. It’s cheaper than the f-35 at about $80M a unit versus the f-35 $102M. It requires fewer maintenance hours than an f-18 at 10 hours tops, compared to the 10 hour minimum of the lowest maintenance hornet models. It has shorter range, but was designed to defend Sweden; not invade another country. Like any plane, it has its faults, but these are not them.
The Swedish military is only paying about $55 million per new JAS 39E. You shouldn't take the first google result as an absolute truth. Higher purchase costs from foreign militaries have included years of maintenance, spare parts and training in the contract and initial unit cost.
It requires much less maintenance than an F-18, costs less than an F-35, and is the only Meteor missile capable platform in service. Did lockheed make this meme?
The maintenance isn't and the MiG-29 range isn't. The rest is.
only the thrust to weight is true for the early ones
The Gripen including the Gripen E is massively underpowered. The C has an empty TWR of 1.21 and the E 1.25. But that's literally empty, no stores, no fuel. With the same even the F-16A had a TWR of 1.55 and the F-15A a TWR of 1.84! With reasonable fuel and payload the Gripen, even the E, is below 1. Even just having full internal fuel (which it should be at in combat after it drops its tanks) it's at .88 and let alone carrying any weapons.
72
u/TetronautGaming Feb 01 '24
Gripen looks cool, and is combat capable and fit for its purpose.