Gripen News Thread

[Swingrole]

Does this hold any water?


– Saab's simulations saw the MBDA Meteor- and Diehl BGT Defence IRIS-T missile-equipped Gripen NG defeat the Su-35 at a ratio of 1:6 to 1. For JSF it's the other way round.

Gripen revives war of words over Norwegian fighter assessment

DATE:03/06/09
SOURCE: Flight International
By Craig Hoyle

Saab-led Gripen International has revived its war of words linked to the Norwegian defence ministry's selection of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and rejection of its Gripen NG offering last November.

The move comes as the next-generation version of the Swedish fighter is in the final phase of competitions in Brazil and Switzerland, and as Saab attempts to revive stalled procurement efforts in three eastern European states.

Oslo prompted a furious response from Saab chief executive Åke Svensson last year after eliminating the Gripen from its fighter contest on the grounds that the design "does not satisfy Norwegian requirements".

Branding the evaluation process "incomplete, or even faulty", Svensson challenged a decision by evaluators to more than treble his company's guaranteed bid price from NKr55 billion ($8.9 billion) to NKr195 billion: NKr30 billion higher than a JSF figure recently confirmed as only an estimate.

Saab was also angered by Norway's conduct of three secret simulations, which evaluators say favoured the F-35. The company subsequently launched its own series of 50 simulations involving the Gripen NG, JSF and a threat force represented by Sukhoi Su-35s, using all available data on the aircraft, countermeasures equipment and missile performance, it says.

Peter Nilsson, vice-president operational capabilities for Gripen International, says the results quash Lockheed's marketing claims that the JSF is over six times more capable than current-generation fighters in air-to-air combat.

Noting that a four-versus-four scenario between F-35s and Su-35s would pit eight Raytheon AIM-120D Amraam missiles and eight AIM-9X Sidewinders against 48 Vympel R-77s and eight R-73s, he comments: "They'd better be invincible. Because if you can't get past the 'Flankers' you'll never get to a ground target."

Saab's simulations saw the MBDA Meteor- and Diehl BGT Defence IRIS-T missile-equipped Gripen NG defeat the Su-35 at a ratio of 1:6 to 1. "For JSF it's the other way round," says Nilsson.

Meanwhile, Gripen International's senior vice-president sales and marketing, Bob Kemp, says the company is taking a new approach in its bid to secure pending fighter deals in Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia, potentially covering a combined total of 42 aircraft.

"We have been looking at our strategy for that region, recognising that there is a real, genuine financial problem," says Kemp. "We're working closely with the Swedish government to try to come up with some innovative financing arrangements to find a way so that they can get the capability now and pay for it later."

Sweden has already leased 14 Gripen C/Ds each to Czech Republic and Hungary.

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ssessment.html

[Skyman]

As a programmer I could say that you can do anything on Simulator. It's just base on data you input, condition you set, and some factor involved. Norway can say F-35 is outclass Gripen in 'Simulator' and Saab can say Gripen is doing far better than F-35 in 'Simulator' ..... highlight the word simulator!!! .... Both parties can have two different simulation model and generate two different result and on the top of it ..... both paties could be wrong or right depends on the condition and data you use and approch you use to judge.

Evaluating fighter in simulator. That's mean you use the mock up environment to test your aircraft. It should work fine in many aeras and it's good to use simulator. but I can say even the best simulator in the world can not simulate all real situation. So I rather said I can not put all trust to the simulated results from both Norway and Saab.

I find it's strange evaluating your aircraft in simulator solely. What happen if in next five year you discovered that your model used today is incorrect? With respect, in my country we always blame armed force by saying that why they did not test all aircrafts in our country's climate? Why you just go and have test flights in the country of origin of the aircraft? But I need to say testing aircraft in simulator and use all information to make a decision is somewhat funny.

Best regards

[signatory]

@ Skyman

Well.... some correction, the Saab simulations is not done against Norway's own since those are unknown and for their unique requirement but actually against the Lockheed Martin simulations that were used in sales campaigns last year.

For Gripen, LM had used a 39C (confirmed by LM) with external fuel, amraams and sidewinders and not the 39NG with Meteor and IRIS-T that Saab has now done, plus more EWS capability I suppose. So the results would without a doubt be more favourable otherwise the METEOR and new avionics etc is totally cr4p. So far, this is just common sense. This config would do better than in the LM sims.

So yes simulations is just simulations however as we see there's also some common sense here we can use just by looking at the weapon systems, and if aircraft would be armed to their teeth with advanced A2A missiles and the opponents is basically in a self-defense A2A loadup for their primary stealthy A2G mission. Missiles and how many is a massive factor and one the Russians in particular use wisely in their tactics.

The SU-35 would also do further better if they had used some kind of data for the modernized R-77M but I suppose that is not too easy to find atm since it's in R&D. Same with getting Meteor info for the rest of us but clearly not for Saab who test fires and designs parts of it. I think their point is that if you're going on a stealthy mission with the JSF (which is LM's big selling point) you're fairly handicapped by not having a boat load of missiles if the opponent is capable enough to exploit that weakness. And in this case it's as much marketing for the METEOR as for Gripen NG.

Like you say, it's possible to say all kinds of things with simulations... but these ones from Saab at least seem to use more modern weapon systems across the players including the AIM-120D for the JSF, instead of just the good stuff for their own product to make the rest look like cr4p. It's not much to go on from this news report though as it doesnt really say that much tbh.

--
------
Anyway.

A partnership in technology

Yesterday, Saab attended a conference on Swedish- Brazilian Industrial co-operation being held in São Paulo, together with the Brazilian Industry association, FIESP, and the Swedish Trade Council.




2009-06-03 |

The theme of the conference is ”Brazil and Sweden, a partnership in Technology” and it will cover the Swedish-Brazilian industrial co-operation today, future developments and future areas of co-operation. The future areas of co-operation that are of particular interest to Brazil concerns advanced technologies, where Sweden has a lot to offer. The areas of interest are civil security, visualization, high-tech medical aids, and biotechnology.

The Swedish multinational companies already established in Brazil since several decades will give their views on the latest developments in Brazil. As well as Saab, speakers from the Swedish Embassy and other Swedish companies such as Ericsson, SCISS, Kiwok Nordico AB and Oregano Click will be attending.
"For Saab, this partnership in technology is not limited to any specific product but aimed to capture the opportunities emerging in the defence, civil security and green technology areas," says Saab CEO Åke Svensson.

link

[JohanGrön]

The company subsequently launched its own series of 50 simulations involving the Gripen NG, JSF and a threat force represented by Sukhoi Su-35s, using all available data on the aircraft, countermeasures equipment and missile performance, it says.

Peter Nilsson, vice-president operational capabilities for Gripen International, says the results quash Lockheed's marketing claims that the JSF is over six times more capable than current-generation fighters in air-to-air combat.

Noting that a four-versus-four scenario between F-35s and Su-35s would pit eight Raytheon AIM-120D Amraam missiles and eight AIM-9X Sidewinders against 48 Vympel R-77s and eight R-73s, he comments: "They'd better be invincible. Because if you can't get past the 'Flankers' you'll never get to a ground target."

Saab's simulations saw the MBDA Meteor- and Diehl BGT Defence IRIS-T missile-equipped Gripen NG defeat the Su-35 at a ratio of 1:6 to 1. "For JSF it's the other way round," says Nilsson.
...
Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ssessment.html

A bit OT but ...

----
--

Lt Col Peter Nilssons callsign when he was an operational SwAF pilot was Beacon. His resumé includes :

• Around 2000 hours on fast jets
• 10 years experience with Gripen
• Wing Commander-Flying, in the SwAF
• Commander SwAFGripen OT&E Unit (TU JAS 39)
• National Test Pilot School, USA (OT&E Course)
• Responsible for Gripen pilot conversion training (Swe, Czech, Hungary)
• Since 1 Jan 2008, Vice President Operational Capabilities –Gripen International

Always nice to see competent people at the right places.

//JG

[energo]

For Gripen, LM had used a 39C (confirmed by LM) with external fuel, amraams and sidewinders and not the 39NG with Meteor and IRIS-T that Saab has now done, plus more EWS capability I suppose. So the results would without a doubt be more favourable otherwise the METEOR and new avionics etc is totally cr4p. So far, this is just common sense. This config would do better than in the LM sims.

Actually, LM has not publisized tactical simulations against any Gripen. What they have done, however, is to compare a simplified acceleration and range chart with the Gripen C.

And the TACBRAWLER simulations are infact not performed by LM, but rather the JSF PO and USAF.


B. Bolsøy
Oslo

[*zeven*]

Actually, LM has not publisized tactical simulations against any Gripen. What they have done, however, is to compare a simplified acceleration and range chart with the Gripen C.

And the TACBRAWLER simulations are infact not performed by LM, but rather the JSF PO and USAF.


B. Bolsøy
Oslo

SO the 6-1 ratio BS ?? did LMs marketing department get those from Speed and acc?? because i remember very well when they used these numbers in as an argument.

the mos pathetic thing i ever experienced BTW, but hey its LM.

[energo]

SO the 6-1 ratio BS ?? did LMs marketing department get those form Speed and acc?? because i remember very well when they used this numbers in as an argument.

the mos pathetic thing i ever experienced BTW, but hey its LM.

First of all please have me excused if this is a news thread, it's not my intention to start a OT discussion. Unless, of course, that's how it's done here. Let me know and I will gracefully bug out.

Now, the 6:1 LER figure (or 5:1, as it was also reported) never mentioned Gripen, but rather "the best 4. gen fighter you can buy today" (or something along those lines). Or in the words of former JPO boss General Davis "the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois". In fact when LM displayed the acceleration chart at last years presentation in Oslo (to which SAAB were invited) they specifically emphasized that it was not the Gripen NG as they had no data on its performances.


B. Bolsøy
Oslo

[signatory]

Actually, LM has not publisized tactical simulations against any Gripen. What they have done, however, is to compare a simplified acceleration and range chart with the Gripen C.

And the TACBRAWLER simulations are infact not performed by LM, but rather the JSF PO and USAF.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Uhm. I didn't talk about tactical simulations done by LM only that LM (and by that I include the JPO and USAF when on the topic of F-35 since LM is the one using their information in marketing and I doubt anyone else really care what other JSF entity did what just like no one cares if FOI and FLSC did the sims for SAAB) had used the 39C and that the NG would do better no matter what the simulations would grade. Common sense.

It seems like you're the only one who is talking as if the reports and comments were that LM or w/e had done Gripen vs. JSF simulations but neither Saab, I or anyone else is suggesting that. That is not in the news. So I don't see why you felt a need to go on that subject since it didn't even exist.

Obviously what Saab is challenging now is the underlined and bold part in the typical media reporting below. That were used to sell in the JSF as far more capable in A2A than 4th gen fighters. And as you can see, even if they didn't create the sims themselves they were the ones who took them to the press.

Meanwhile Lockheed Martin has defended the air-to-air capabilities of the F-35 while conceding, possibly for the first time, that the aircraft's combat performance Within Visual Range (WVR) will be only marginally superior to that of fourth generation and advanced fourth generation counterparts.

Jerry Mazanowski, senior manager of Combat Air Systems in the company's Strategic Studies Group, told the visiting journalists there was a perception not only overseas but within the US military that the JSF was a subsonic bomber, not unlike the F-117.

In a briefing entitled "Setting the Record Straight" Mazanowski, a former US Navy F-14 pilot, compared the air-to-air performance of the F-35 with that of the Eurofighter, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A/-18 Super Hornet, and Sukhoi Su-30MKI.

In a typical combat configuration carrying four internally-stored AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air missiles (AMRAAMs), the F-35 was marginally faster than the Su-30MKI carrying eight Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles and no external fuel tanks, and faster than the Eurofighter, Gripen C, Rafale and Super Hornet carrying four BVR and two WVR missiles and a single external fuel tank (two in the Eurofighter's case).

Taking all salient aircraft characteristics into account, in a four-versus-four scenario against what was described as a "threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future" the F-35 showed a better than six-to-one loss exchange ratio while the other aircraft scored less than one-to-one.

In a WVR engagement the differences in the capabilities of the various aircraft were barely measurable.

Although the F-35 was assumed not to be carrying externally-mounted AIM-9X short-range missiles, Mazanowski praised the short range as well as the long range performance of AMRAAM. Nevertheless, he described the WVR environment as "very awkward and very lethal".

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/...--adm-mar-2009

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/p...dstraight.html

Of course there's more than that out there but I am not spending all my day on internet forums defending private corps. So this will do for now.

Indeed this thread is for news and info on Gripen, and allows for comments to that news and info on the Gripen. Since LM talked about Gripen it became relevant to discuss their simulations.

But not much more.

[Netzach]

[signatory]

^ Yeah I noticed that Trimble finally found that vid from february

A reminder for the Swedes: 4-ship spotting tomorrow.....



Going to be low and loud....

[TR1]

SO the 6-1 ratio BS ?? did LMs marketing department get those from Speed and acc?? because i remember very well when they used these numbers in as an argument.

the mos pathetic thing i ever experienced BTW, but hey its LM.

Well the latest SAAB marketing BS isnt new on the European continent. I remember the EF claims that something like ten Su-35s were need for each Typhoon. I am to this day not sure how they came up with these numbers. Not to mention how they could think anyone would consider them credible.

[signatory]

Well the latest SAAB marketing BS isnt new on the European continent. I remember the EF claims that something like ten Su-35s were need for each Typhoon. I am to this day not sure how they came up with these numbers. Not to mention how they could think anyone would consider them credible.

Well in one of just a magnitude of possible scenarios Saab claim a modest 8:5 ratio against SU-35. You may of course call that marketing BS however I think it's far more realistic than if they would have issued a statment saying something like 'on average' 10:1 or 6:1 ratio or w/e else.

Some people also don't seem to understand what was actually said and should probably re-read the article.

[Herman the II]

Well the latest SAAB marketing BS isnt new on the European continent. I remember the EF claims that something like ten Su-35s were need for each Typhoon. I am to this day not sure how they came up with these numbers. Not to mention how they could think anyone would consider them credible.

I believe you are reffering to the JOUST study which gave a ratio of 4:1 in favour of the EF Thyphoon. That study wasnt done by the Eurofighter GmbH but by an indipendent institution ordered by the UK MoD.
That was just for clearification. We should wait until the Su35 enters service.
Back on topic....

[TR1]

Well in one of just a magnitude of possible scenarios Saab claim a modest 8:5 ratio against SU-35. You may of course call that marketing BS however I think it's far more realistic than if they would have issued a statment saying something like 'on average' 10:1 or 6:1 ratio or w/e else.

Some people also don't seem to understand what was actually said and should probably re-read the article.

It seems the SAAB ratings are more refletcive of the capabilities of Meteor, as opposed to the actual plane. In that way, the "kill ratio" makes sense.

[-Max2-]

First kills for the Gripen.

The Swedish armed forces has agreed to compensate a poultry farmer in northern Sweden after an air force exercise caused the death of 31 chickens

The Norrbotten wing of the Swedish air force has agreed to pay Bohmans Hönseri AB the sum of 6,100 kronor ($775) to compensate for the loss of the hens.

The hens were crushed to death in a panicked mêlée when the Jas Gripen fighter aircraft flew at an altitude of 50-100 metres above their coop at the farm in Jörn near Skellefteå in the far north of Sweden.

Farmer Åsa Karlsson, in her complaint to the armed forces, confirmed that the hens were scared out of their wits by the roar of the low flying fighter jets overhead. The brood ran towards a wall of their enclosure and 31 birds fell victim in the surge.

The sum was agreed between the parties based on a calculation that the hens had a further seven weeks to live and would have been expected to produce a harvest of 14 eggs per week.

http://www.thelocal.se/19938/20090608/