Henry240:


I did not compare the Gripen to the F-16 Block 40, i said, the Gripen is not as good as the F-16 Block 52. I never mention UAE Block 60s because of all in-service F-16s, the Block 60 is in a totally different generation. You compare the Block 60 to aircrafts such as the Rafale and Eurofighter.


You keep going on an on about Net-Centric. All modern aircrafts are Net-Centric. All of them can share data. That's not an advantage in 2016.

I am telling you that the Gripen C/D, is just like every other modern aircraft in the market. However when capabilities are brought to bear, the Gripen can in no shape or form hope to match aircrafts such as the F-16 Block 52 and above or the MIG-29M, certainly not the SU-30SM and above.


For it's class it is a decent fighter, however it's capablities are within what is obtainable for other aircrafts in it's class. It is not a wonder to worth 65 million per aircraft, it's huge price is only a tactic by SAAB to leverage upon the lack of aircrafts in the West in it's class. The Gripen shouldn't cost above 30- 35 million a pop.


F-16 Viper.


It is not a bias.

ok.

So its not as good as a F16 Block 52.

Why then did Switzerland compare the Gripen to the Eurofighter and Rafael? Why did they not consider the F16 at all? They could get them, they have F18's.

Why then did Thailand, who according to you only buys western equipment, not buy the F16 Block 52... why did they spend MORE money on an inferior fighter when they were buying aircraft to combat the Su30MKI?

This is just you defending the JF-17 and Nigerias decision to buy it.

Henry240:


Software upgrades allow all modern aircrafts which a flown by computers do what they couldn't previously. It is just an operating system upgrade. All modern fighters can carry out OS upgrades, the capability you mention is not an advantage.

Chief, let me bring it down to your level. You can take an E Series (Mercedes-Benz) for a software update BUT it won't add new features like a Tesla Model S would although both are modern.

The Gripen is 4+ generation fighter while most of the so called modern fighters are just 4th generation.

Patchesagain:


So thats your argument?

"Its totally better, but they only buy the other option because they are loyal customers"

J-10 is literally a clone.

You are buying the JF-17 because it is cheap.

So, Nigeria is buying the JF-17, not for the following reasons;

- that it incorporates modern FBW with advanced state-of-the art avionics

- that it has a Radar range of over 100km

- that it is capable of firing BVRAAM at 80km

- that it is excellent in all the roles, Air-to-ground, Air-to-Air, Recon, Air-to-Sea.

- that is has a short turn around time

- that it is capable of air-refueling

- that is features an advanced Data-Link

- that it has a more powerful engine than the Gripen C/D

- that it meets our overall strike and air defence requirements

- that it is a combat proven platform

- that it is capable of firing PGM and laser guided bombs



According to Patchesagain, Nigeria is buying the JF-17 because it is cheap. So Patchesagain should Nigeria buy the Gripen C/D because it is expensive?

WHY DO WE NEED A FULLY DIGITAL FLY BY WIRE (FBW) CONTROL SYSTEM IN ALL 3 AXIS (pitch, roll and yaw)

primary reason is RELAXED STATIC STABILITY (RSS) AIRCRAFT DESIGN

In simple words the AIRCRAFT IS DESIGNED TO BE VERY UNSTABLE.

RSS changes the dynamics of the aircraft while dramatically enhancing its maneuvering capabilities.

Implementing relaxed static stability means that the center of lift will forward of the center of gravity instead of aft of it and as a result the aircraft will be statically unstable.

Also static stability is proportional to the control forces, therefor reducing stability gives pilots more response for the same effort.

RSS is also called reduced static longitudinal static stability. longitudinal static stability can be measured as the relative distance between neutral point and the center of gravity.

an aircraft with RSS design will have the center of gravity aft of the neutral point.
(the neutral point is that point along the path of the center of gravity movement where the stick force per knot drops to zero and increases in either direction.)

as we shift the center of gravity aft of the neutral point , stability is lost and the aircraft will start deviating from its trimmed state.so shifting the center of gravity back gives us a more responsive and maneuverable aircraft but with the added risk of uncontrollable behavior which cannot be contained by manual input. however this behavior is useful if we want high angle changes and even high AOA quickly.

an unstable aircraft only needs minimal kick and will do the rest of the maneuver all by itself. it is also helps to reduce the inertias particularly around the role axis for a faster response.maneuvers are instantaneous initiated and most importantly precisely controlled.

also deliberately designed unstable aircrafts require smaller control deflections to initiate maneuvering , as a result drag and control surface imposed stresses is reduced and aircraft responsiveness is also enhanced.

RSS configured aircrafts are near impossible to control by pilot input, so an artificial stability is imposed by using computers , servos and sensors as parts of a fully digital fly by wire (FBW) control system working in all the three axis that is pitch, yaw and roll.

advantages of RSS design coupled with FULL FBW are
1.it provides good handling capability
2.it also provides invariant response with respect to variations in aerodynamics , fuel etc and facilitates robust performance.
3.it enables the pilot to fly the mission without worrying about exceeding of flight parameters beyond the safe limits.in flight safety is increased.
4.precise response control , reduced lag and overshoots results in vastly improved response and tracking accuracy of the pilot airframe system.
etc
etc

aircrafts with RSS implementations are F16 , Rafale , LCA , Typhoon etc and any stealth aircraft.

i lack info on the Gripen , so if anybody knows plz inform.

@Mynd44, please can you Unban Nemesis2u. He's been hit by the Anti-Spambot yet again.

Patchesagain:


ok.

So its not as good as a F16 Block 52.

Why then did Switzerland compare the Gripen to the Eurofighter and Rafael? Why did they not consider the F16 at all? They could get them, they have F18's.

Why then did Thailand, who according to you only buys western equipment, not buy the F16 Block 52... why did they spend MORE money on an inferior fighter when they were buying aircraft to combat the Su30MKI?

This is just you defending the JF-17 and Nigerias decision to buy it.

The Swedes had the choice to go for the F/A-18 Super-hornet, just like the Australians. The fact they decided to go European is all down to politics.

Is the Gripen an Eastern fighter?

I only made reference to the JF-17 and LCA because they are in the same class as the Gripen.



Anyway, there hasn't been any evidence by you or any other South-African to prove the Gripen C/D model to be on the same scale as the F-16 Block 52. The available stats show the Block 52 is a better aircraft.

Henry240:


So, Nigeria is buying the JF-17, not for the following reasons;

- that it incorporates modern FBW with advanced state-of-the art avionics

- that it has a Radar range of over 100km

- that it is capable of firing BVRAAM at 80km

- that it is excellent in all the roles, Air-to-ground, Air-to-Air, Recon, Air-to-Sea.

- that is has a short turn around time

- that it is capable of air-refueling

- that is features an advanced Data-Link

- that it has a more powerful engine than the Gripen C/D

- that it meets our overall strike and air defence requirements

- that it is a combat proven platform

- that it is capable of firing PGM and laser guided bombs



According to Patchesagain, Nigeria is buying the JF-17 because it is cheap. So Patchesagain should Nigeria buy the Gripen C/D because it is expensive?

Of course the Gripen does all those better.

Honestly, if you guys had the budget to buy decent fighters you wouldn't be buying Chinese fakes.

Henry240:


So, Nigeria is buying the JF-17, not for the following reasons;

- that it incorporates modern FBW with advanced state-of-the art avionics

- that it has a Radar range of over 100km

- that it is capable of firing BVRAAM at 80km

- that it is excellent in all the roles, Air-to-ground, Air-to-Air, Recon, Air-to-Sea.

- that is has a short turn around time

- that it is capable of air-refueling

- that is features an advanced Data-Link

- that it has a more powerful engine than the Gripen C/D

- that it meets our overall strike and air defence requirements

- that it is a combat proven platform

- that it is capable of firing PGM and laser guided bombs



According to Patchesagain, Nigeria is buying the JF-17 because it is cheap. So Patchesagain should Nigeria buy the Gripen C/D because it is expensive?

any country choose a weapon not only depends on the specs the price but more importantly the theat level that it facing,current I see no need for Nigeria to buy a Gripen NG or Su-35 or Eurofighter just to fight some insurgents with slippers and AK-47, or dealing with neighboring country that has obsolete aircrafts.that is the reason why some trainer or lead-in fighter still has it's market.

@Activatekruger, how's life in the gulag, i see the Anti-Spambot has sentenced you to 24 hours imprisonment.

i wrote the above article on relaxed static stability 3 times and 3 times i got banned, the first 2 was even more detailed.

i am really starting to hate the anti spam bot , it is getting triggered even for simple texts without pic or links.
i think anti spam bot doesn't like me
racist anti spam bot down with u
i think skynet must have infected it

Henry240:


So, Nigeria is buying the JF-17, not for the following reasons;

- that it incorporates modern FBW with advanced state-of-the art avionics

- that it has a Radar range of over 100km

- that it is capable of firing BVRAAM at 80km

- that it is excellent in all the roles, Air-to-ground, Air-to-Air, Recon, Air-to-Sea. [Your opinion]

- that is has a short turn around time

- that it is capable of air-refueling

- that is features an advanced Data-Link

- that it has a more powerful engine than the Gripen C/D

- that it meets our overall strike and air defence requirements [Your opinion]

- that it is a combat proven platform

- that it is capable of firing PGM and laser guided bombs



According to Patchesagain, Nigeria is buying the JF-17 because it is cheap. So Patchesagain should Nigeria buy the Gripen C/D because it is expensive?

- Uses RD-33 derivative engine (enough said)
- 50.0 kN of thrust (Gripen 54 kN)
- Under-powered (had to use afterburners for even the most basic maneuvers)
- Gripen max speed, Mach 2, JF-17 Max Speed Max 1.6

- Airframe rated to only 8G, Gripen to 9G

- Gripen has better wing loading (more maneuverable)

- Gripen has an extra 20km radar range

- Gripen can engage 4 targets simultaneously

- BVRAAM at 100km+

- Gripen turns at 30 degrees/second, turn time for JF-17 is not listed anywhere

- JF-17 has not seen combat

- Gripen can be turned around in under 10 min by a ground crew of one technician and 3 conscripts (on a highway)

- Gripen is also capable of air-to-air refueling

-JF-17 payload 3,629 kg, Gripen payload 5,300 kg

- JF-17 7 hardpoints, Gripen 8 hard points.

Gripen has a more powerfull engine, is faster, is more maneuverable, has a bigger payload, more hard-points, has more advanced electronics (HMD, fly-by-wire, complete sensor fusion, EWS 39 amongst the most capable EW suite in existance) is combat tested and has over 20 years of operational history. Most importantly many customers have chosen it over the SU30 and chosen it to fight the Su30. Not to mention a full generation ahead of the JF-17 (according to its chinese designer)

You get what you pay for.

Henry240:


The Swedes had the choice to go for the F/A-18 Super-hornet, just like the Australians. The fact they decided to go European is all down to politics.

Is the Gripen an Eastern fighter?

I only made reference to the JF-17 and LCA because they are in the same class as the Gripen.



Anyway, there hasn't been any evidence by you or any other South-African to prove the Gripen C/D model to be on the same scale as the F-16 Block 52. The available stats show the Block 52 is a better aircraft.

And what of Thailand? They chose the Gripen over the Su30... a military decision not a political one. Why not get the F16 Blk 52? "A better aircraft for less money"

Henry, the obligation lies on the accuser. You accuse that it is inferior to the Block 52. Prove it.

patches689:


Maybe its more to do with the fact that they dont need an twin engined air superiority fighter that can be taken out by a Gripen...

Economies of scale They got 6 gripens(might b 12 not checked) and an AWACS
all its neighbors use heavy fighters...without d AWACS there is no way they could have claimed "defence" of themselves
Am not here to bash any plane or sumfn..A gripen is a LCA and yes it is overpriced for its role
I am not forcing it down ur throat

Odunayaw:
Economies of scale They got 6 gripens(might b 12 not checked) and an AWACS
all its neighbors use heavy fighters...without d AWACS there is no way they could have claimed "defence" of themselves
Am not here to bash any plane or sumfn..A gripen is a LCA and yes it is overpriced for its role
I am not forcing it down ur throat

Exactly.

They dont have lots of money, hence pressure to buy cheaper aircarft.

They chose half a squadron of Gripen over a full squadron of something else. That tells you all you need to know.

Also, Gripen can match the Su30MKI without AWACS in a BVR fight
https://www.africandefence.net/angolas-su-30ks-are-not-a-serious-threat-to-the-south-african-air-force/

We have stored Impala MK2 we don't know what to do with.. I heard Nigeria is buying cheap, they might be interested. It's great for killing Islamic cave dwellers.

Edit

Edit

Henry240:
@Activatekruger, how's life in the gulag, i see the Anti-Spambot has sentenced you to 24 hours imprisonment.

Yet I'm still posting, I must be a witch

Henry240:


So, Nigeria is buying the JF-17, not for the following reasons;

- that it incorporates modern FBW with advanced state-of-the art avionics

- that it has a Radar range of over 100km

- that it is capable of firing BVRAAM at 80km

- that it is excellent in all the roles, Air-to-ground, Air-to-Air, Recon, Air-to-Sea.

- that is has a short turn around time

- that it is capable of air-refueling

- that is features an advanced Data-Link

- that it has a more powerful engine than the Gripen C/D

- that it meets our overall strike and air defence requirements

- that it is a combat proven platform

- that it is capable of firing PGM and laser guided bombs



According to Patchesagain, Nigeria is buying the JF-17 because it is cheap. So Patchesagain should Nigeria buy the Gripen C/D because it is expensive?

its either I developed an impressive Tolerance for d constant crap patches litters d internet with or I am just used to him by now

I wonder how it isn't foolish by 2016 standard to start sweating over different class of fighters

ActivateKruger:
We have stored Impala MK2 we don't know what to do with.. I heard Nigeria is buying cheap, they might be interested. It's great for killing Islamic cave dwellers.

I knew it has to b the demon of foolishness that possessed you

JF 17 has fly by wire ( FBW ) only in the pitch axis .
it lacks FBW in the yaw and roll axis.

therefor jf17 is mentioned to have a composite FBW .

initially when FC1 was been developed the Chinese were working on J10 and they did not have any expertise on designing an aircraft with FBW . they were busy developing and testing it on the J10.
so FC-1 came out with conventional controls. later on when the FC-1 was changed into JF17 program, the conventional controls in only the pitch axis was replaced by FBW flight controls.

the main reason being
1.to keep down cost . cost of developing a FBW system can be anywhere between 20-30 % of the total developmental costs.
2.to keep down developmental time . to develop and certify a full FBW system will take anywhere between 5-10 years.
3.technology restrain , china had acquired the proficiency on FBW system with the J10 program , Pak**tan had to wait for the maturity of the Chinese expertise on FBW and only when the Chinese were confident enough, they guided the pak**tanis to develop the composite FBW (working on the pitch axis ) for JF17.

additionally to keep down costs and cut development time further, the composite FBW in jf-17 was coded in C++.

coding for FBW are usually done in ADA or any subsets of the ADA language.

nemesis2u:
JF 17 has fly by wire ( FBW ) only in the pitch axis .
it lacks FBW in the yaw and roll axis.

therefor jf17 is mentioned to have a composite FBW .

initially when FC1 was been developed the Chinese were working on J10 and they did not have any expertise on designing an aircraft with FBW . they were busy developing and testing it on the J10.
so FC-1 came out with conventional controls. later on when the FC-1 was changed into JF17 program, the conventional controls in only the pitch axis was replaced by FBW flight controls.

the main reason being
1.to keep down cost . cost of developing a FBW system can be anywhere between 20-30 % of the total developmental costs.
2.to keep down developmental time . to develop and certify a full FBW system will take anywhere between 5-10 years.
3.technology restrain , china had acquired the proficiency on FBW system with the J10 program , Pak**tan had to wait for the maturity of the Chinese expertise on FBW and only when the Chinese were confident enough, they guided the pak**tanis to develop the composite FBW (working on the pitch axis ) for JF17.

additionally to keep down costs and cut development time further, the composite FBW in jf-17 was coded in C++.

coding for FBW are usually done in ADA or any subsets of the ADA language.

That's block I not latest version

the reason coding with C++ is because it's easier and understandable for any computer engineer in any country. If they want they can switch to any other programing language.

No other Chinese aircraft coding with C++ language.

Patchesagain:


- Uses RD-33 derivative engine (enough said)
- 50.0 kN of thrust (Gripen 54 kN)

- Under-powered (had to use afterburners for even the most basic maneuvers)-How drunk were you when you typed this


- Gripen max speed, Mach 2, JF-17 Max Speed Max 1.6

- Airframe rated to only 8G, Gripen to 9G

- Gripen has better wing loading (more maneuverable)

- Gripen has an extra 20km radar range

- Gripen can engage 4 targets simultaneously

- BVRAAM at 100km+

- Gripen turns at 30 degrees/second, turn time for JF-17 is not listed anywhere

- JF-17 has not seen combat

- Gripen can be turned around in under 10 min by a ground crew of one technician and 3 conscripts (on a highway)

- Gripen is also capable of air-to-air refueling

-JF-17 payload 3,629 kg, Gripen payload 5,300 kg

- JF-17 7 hardpoints, Gripen 8 hard points.
Gripen has a more powerfull engine, is faster, is more maneuverable, has a bigger payload, more hard-points, has more advanced electronics (HMD, fly-by-wire, complete sensor fusion, EWS 39 amongst the most capable EW suite in existance) is combat tested and has over 20 years of operational history. Most importantly many customers have chosen it over the SU30 and chosen it to fight the Su30. Not to mention a full generation ahead of the JF-17 (according to its chinese designer)

You get what you pay for.

As usual stupidity..I mean how do people around you cope

Till u can prove the gripen c/d is as capable other fighters its price range u will only keep going in circles

Patchesagain:


Exactly.

They dont have lots of money, hence pressure to buy cheaper aircarft.

They chose half a squadron of Gripen over a full squadron of something else. That tells you all you need to know.

Also, Gripen can match the Su30MKI without AWACS in a BVR fight
https://www.africandefence.net/angolas-su-30ks-are-not-a-serious-threat-to-the-south-african-air-force/

I was expecting that website
u forget the Angolans use a different variant of the Su-30??
now tell me sumthn...why do u think the Thai got an AWACS

Patchesagain:



You get what you pay for.

You are right. I do get what i pay for. So let's compare what i pay for against what you pay for.

What I pay for against what you pay for.


This is what i pay for, for $25 million. JF-17.


That's what you pay for, for $65 million. Gripen C/D.


Even a blind man doesn't need to be told who has gained more value for his money.

Patchesagain congrats to Mbeki for paying 65 million for a JF-17.

Henry240:



You are right. I do get what i pay for. So let's compare what i pay for against what you pay for.

Non..sense!

Like when was the A-Darter and PL-10 intergrated on the JF-17. The aircraft has no 5th Gen WVR missiles.

The Gripen carries superior weaponry. Meteor, IRIS-T, A-Darter, Small diameter bomb etc.

MikeCZA:
Non..sense!

Like when was the A-Darter and PL-10 intergrated on the JF-17. The aircraft has no 5th Gen WVR missiles.

The Gripen carries superior weaponry. Meteor, IRIS-T, A-Darter, Small diameter bomb etc.

Is the A-Darter ready for the Gripen yet? ...... NO. It's all based on the current negotiations Denel has had with PAC and SAAB.
The meteor is a European missile, the PL-10 is a Chinese missile and the JF-17 is a Chinese plane.

The JF-17 carries the SD-10 and can fire the PL-15.


Again, it is clear who is getting value for money.

Patchesagain:


Also, Gripen can match the Su30MKI without AWACS in a BVR fight
https://www.africandefence.net/angolas-su-30ks-are-not-a-serious-threat-to-the-south-african-air-force/

i have nothing against the gripen, i find it to be a very capable aircraft well suited for the purpose for which it was designed.

but to claim a gripen can run down a su30mki with or without AWACS is lolzzzz.

firstly Gripen is a light category fighter , SU30MKI is a heavy category aircraft.

maybe a flight of gripens running well though out tactics might corner a single su 3030mki , but against a similar no of su30mki , it will be out matched completely.

do u know a su30mki is by itself a mini AWACS . its 2 man crew provides better operational performance and situational awareness in high paced aerial engagements etc etc.

lets give u a small example......

Su-30MKI is an air superiority fighter and was designed from the outset to cruise at far higher altitudes than other combat aircraft. a Su-30MKI will always be cruising at least 10,000 feet/15,000 feet above its so called opponents like the F-16 , Gripens etc and that's because the Su-30MKI's RLSU-30MK/NO-11M 'Bars' PESA-MMR and OEPS-30 IRST sensor both function at their very best when operating in the look-down mode. In addition, a R-77 BVRAAM or R-73E WVRAAM when fired from a higher altitude against targets below will possess higher kinematic performance as well as greater engagement ranges.
for a moment lets assume that gripen has superior ranged BVRAAMS.
then also it should not be a problem because it is a fact that no AAM flies straight either in azimuth or elevation & therefore max range is never critical. all BVRAAMs use proportional navigation within a 3-dimensional spherical bowl that enables them to compute the most probable & optimum interception point. The dimensions of the 3-D bowl are entirely dependent on the mechanically scanning MMR antennae’s max gimbaled movements in azimuth and elevation and these in turn are the final determinants of an AAM’s performance parameters as far as effective range goes. Any aircraft cruising at higher altitudes will have a greater field-of-regard & expanded horizon & will consequently its on-board MMR’s antenna will require far less degree of movement in azimuth & elevation when compared the MMR performance of an aircraft cruising at a lower altitude. Thus, even if an adversary’s BVRAAM can fly a longer distance than an R-77, it will still require mid-course guidance cues from the MMR provided the MMR can keep a Su-30MKI within its field-of-view.

i am assuming the gripen is using PS05/A MARK 3 which is capable of detecting a fighter aircraft from 120 km distance and can see road traffic and count ships at anchor in a harbour at 70 km and Su-30MKI's RLSU-30MK/NO-11M 'Bars' PESA-MMR has a search range of 400 km and a tracking range of 200 km.

and what about the OEPS-30 IRST sensor of Su-30MKI which gives it an indomitable edge for passive engagement ?

and i gave one example , there are many others , but i am weary of the anti spam bot it might ban be again

at end of the day what matters is the pilot behind the seat and how smart he is and most importantly when a real fight does occur between a gripen or a su30mki only then we will be 100% sure.
rest of the time comparative analysis is better taken with a pinch of salt be it for gripen or su30 or f22 or any aircraft.

lets do it for fun or because we r defense nerds or lack a active social life or lack a girlfriend .
no need to loose sleep over it.
cheers

chinese8107:


That's block I not latest version

the reason coding with C++ is because it's easier and understandable for any engineer in any country. If they want they can switch to any other programing language.

No other Chinese aircraft coding with C++ language.

That's block I not latest version

ur wrong , it is same for all versions, because the PAF has no problems with it and they are satisfied with it .
but they said they/chinese are ready to implement full FBW in JF17 if any user requests it. but the customer will have to pay for the same.

and i said nothing about Chinese FBW coding with C++ language. read again.