I think the same too. We have a few new members who keep posting easily debunkable lies.
European Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter sandyj
- Start date
Soviet...gosh. Jas-39C is a 2002 aircraft, Soviet Union was long gone. It's a direct contemporary of Su-30MKI (same year of introduction).
Su-27sk, on the other hand, were 1980s a/c at their worst(export equipment), except for some relatively small tweaks.
Or maybe he/she just didn’t know and you guys are being too harsh. Keep an open mind please.
I wasn't specifically talking about the Gripen vs J-11 article. My comment was a general statement. There are currently 2 accounts that I believe to be trolls.
The clue is in the tone of the posting.
"But the J-11 seems to have problems with small Scandinavian fighters".
I think he is from Sweden. He is right to be proud of Gripen performing well against its intended adversary.
Well, I for example can infer that the tone and or meaning of your response was and is sarcastic and not complimentary. It's called reading between the lines which am sure you're more than intimately familiar with.
@Bltizo
I'm from Poland. Gripen and broader defense cooperation with Sweden were a major point of interest for the government in the 90s and 00s. Gripen is also in active service in Czechia and Hungary which are both part of NATO so we have the necessary information on how it compares to other aircraft - including those that I mentioned. Specifically F-16, Mirage 2000 and Gripen were part of a bid for the Polish Air Force and there were limited (not public) practical tests done. Sweden is a neighbour to the north and an ally on security in the Baltic region. Poland was also a member of the Warsaw Pact. Since I don't see any Swedes working with the Gripen contributing to the conversation I'm your best option.
I didn't say anything about reviewing technology being an error. I said that it is not a necessity because Gripen's technology is a consequence of requirement to fight and win against Flankers. Gripens in air defense missions would be effective (to a different degree) against every Flanker including Su-35S although N035E might have enough power to burn through unupgraded ECM while PS-05A will not work at that distance - but the latest R-77 is necessary to exploit the range. Which is also why Su-30s are being upgraded and Sweden is rebuilding them to NGs with AESA.
Any and all tactical scenarios against Su-27 are Gripen's "original role" because Gripen was intended to replace all other aircraft in Swedish service. In the 90s Su-27 would become the primary long-range fighter of Frontal Aviation. The distance between Sweden and USSR is ~300-400km so any attack against targets beyond the eastern coast of Sweden would involve Su-27s as escort since MiG-29s and 23s could carry only two BVR missiles and had shorter range and fewer pylons with lower payload limiting extra fuel.
JAS 39C is not "substantially more capable" than JAS 39A. JAS 39C is not a "mature" Gripen. It is the NATO-capable Gripen while JAS 39A is Sweden-capable Gripen. The main difference between C and A is in-flight refueling which was not specified for A because of the the dispersed airfield infrastructure in Bas90 system. C is also fully compatible with NATO standards which required changes to some electronic systems. All other upgrades are minor and would be implemented. "C" variant is in service because NATO standards in aviation became Swedish standards for practical reasons due to expansion of NATO and EU. "A" and "C" are more "block" than variant if you exclude the probe.
Gripen is superior air defense fighter compared to the F-16, F-18 and Mirage and we know it from experience. It has better maneuverability and better all-around kinematics. It has sensor fusion and very efficient cockpit design. It has all the sensors and defensive systems that 4.5 gens have. Technologically it is the equivalent of Rafale/Typhoon. That however is balanced by Gripen being the worst attack aircraft of all currently offered multirole fighters. It has low payload and suffers more aerodynamically when loaded. It has short range and weak engine when at max capacity. Since most countries need also penetrating and offensive counter-air as well as regular strike missions and not just defensive counter-air Gripen usually comes last in capabilities category among multirole aircraft. It should be understood however that Gripen is very capable but not very efficient. That low efficiency is traded off for lower life-cycle cost but not everyone likes that trade-off. Gripen was designed to be part of the system that only Sweden implemented and optimized for requirements that few countries other than Sweden have. It was meant to shoot Soviet aircraft over Sweden and it is very good for that purpose.
The reason why Gripen struggled with implementation of many technologies was because it was a 4,5gen funded by a small country without export markets and at the time when defense budgets were consistently falling. In reality it is delayed to the same extent as Typhoon and for similar reasons.
@Gloire_bb
Su-27 was a specific response to F-15 and Gripen was a general response to Soviet air superiority fighters which included the Su-27.
Development of F-15 started in 1968, it first flew in 1972 and entered service in 1976. Development of Su-27 started in 1969, it first flew in 1977 and entered service in 1985. Development of Gripen started in 1979, the first flight was planned for 1987 with introduction into service in 1993 but problems with fly-by-wire system delayed it for couple of years and Gripen was introduced in 1996.
As for Su-27 - even Soviet variants weren't particularly good. The airframe was flawed which led to Su-27M (Su-35) and the radar was N001 capable of engaging a single target with SARH missiles. Su-27s would lose against any western 4th gens armed with AIM-120.
----------------------------------------
I'll end it here. This is a China Flanker Thread and I am interested in trading information - not arguments. Anyone has questions - there's that envelope icon at the top of the screen.
I'm from Poland. Gripen and broader defense cooperation with Sweden were a major point of interest for the government in the 90s and 00s. Gripen is also in active service in Czechia and Hungary which are both part of NATO so we have the necessary information on how it compares to other aircraft - including those that I mentioned. Specifically F-16, Mirage 2000 and Gripen were part of a bid for the Polish Air Force and there were limited (not public) practical tests done. Sweden is a neighbour to the north and an ally on security in the Baltic region. Poland was also a member of the Warsaw Pact. Since I don't see any Swedes working with the Gripen contributing to the conversation I'm your best option.
I didn't say anything about reviewing technology being an error. I said that it is not a necessity because Gripen's technology is a consequence of requirement to fight and win against Flankers. Gripens in air defense missions would be effective (to a different degree) against every Flanker including Su-35S although N035E might have enough power to burn through unupgraded ECM while PS-05A will not work at that distance - but the latest R-77 is necessary to exploit the range. Which is also why Su-30s are being upgraded and Sweden is rebuilding them to NGs with AESA.
Any and all tactical scenarios against Su-27 are Gripen's "original role" because Gripen was intended to replace all other aircraft in Swedish service. In the 90s Su-27 would become the primary long-range fighter of Frontal Aviation. The distance between Sweden and USSR is ~300-400km so any attack against targets beyond the eastern coast of Sweden would involve Su-27s as escort since MiG-29s and 23s could carry only two BVR missiles and had shorter range and fewer pylons with lower payload limiting extra fuel.
JAS 39C is not "substantially more capable" than JAS 39A. JAS 39C is not a "mature" Gripen. It is the NATO-capable Gripen while JAS 39A is Sweden-capable Gripen. The main difference between C and A is in-flight refueling which was not specified for A because of the the dispersed airfield infrastructure in Bas90 system. C is also fully compatible with NATO standards which required changes to some electronic systems. All other upgrades are minor and would be implemented. "C" variant is in service because NATO standards in aviation became Swedish standards for practical reasons due to expansion of NATO and EU. "A" and "C" are more "block" than variant if you exclude the probe.
Gripen is superior air defense fighter compared to the F-16, F-18 and Mirage and we know it from experience. It has better maneuverability and better all-around kinematics. It has sensor fusion and very efficient cockpit design. It has all the sensors and defensive systems that 4.5 gens have. Technologically it is the equivalent of Rafale/Typhoon. That however is balanced by Gripen being the worst attack aircraft of all currently offered multirole fighters. It has low payload and suffers more aerodynamically when loaded. It has short range and weak engine when at max capacity. Since most countries need also penetrating and offensive counter-air as well as regular strike missions and not just defensive counter-air Gripen usually comes last in capabilities category among multirole aircraft. It should be understood however that Gripen is very capable but not very efficient. That low efficiency is traded off for lower life-cycle cost but not everyone likes that trade-off. Gripen was designed to be part of the system that only Sweden implemented and optimized for requirements that few countries other than Sweden have. It was meant to shoot Soviet aircraft over Sweden and it is very good for that purpose.
The reason why Gripen struggled with implementation of many technologies was because it was a 4,5gen funded by a small country without export markets and at the time when defense budgets were consistently falling. In reality it is delayed to the same extent as Typhoon and for similar reasons.
@Gloire_bb
Su-27 was a specific response to F-15 and Gripen was a general response to Soviet air superiority fighters which included the Su-27.
Development of F-15 started in 1968, it first flew in 1972 and entered service in 1976. Development of Su-27 started in 1969, it first flew in 1977 and entered service in 1985. Development of Gripen started in 1979, the first flight was planned for 1987 with introduction into service in 1993 but problems with fly-by-wire system delayed it for couple of years and Gripen was introduced in 1996.
As for Su-27 - even Soviet variants weren't particularly good. The airframe was flawed which led to Su-27M (Su-35) and the radar was N001 capable of engaging a single target with SARH missiles. Su-27s would lose against any western 4th gens armed with AIM-120.
----------------------------------------
I'll end it here. This is a China Flanker Thread and I am interested in trading information - not arguments. Anyone has questions - there's that envelope icon at the top of the screen.
Su-27s was operational well before AIM-120 - and with R-27ER/ET duo was probably superior to AIM-7M armed F-15C(and outright superior to F-16C w/o any WVR missile at all).
If not for the fall - it would've obtained R-77 at the same time as early AIM-120B became available to US fighters(but not to allies yet!). Furthermore, much longer ranged active R-27EA wouldn't have died in its infancy due to bad luck of now being Ukrainian.
Eurocanards - all 3 of them - were born substantially later, in this case - essentially ~15 years later(Gripen C). No wonder it performed better. Its intended opponents "would've been" different aircraft, none of which survived through the fall of the SU.
But when China was in talks for Su-27sk - which started in 1989 - it was going for the best thing available on the market. Even with relatively meh-level Soviet electronics and man-machine interfaces.