Gen3115
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2016
- Messages
- 152
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Well, actually that's the point. Gripen is basically cheaper version of F-16V. So if we go down Gripen route it'd be to replace the F-16.
Maybe this is very very unpopular opinion, but let's dissect this option for awhile.
Imagine replacing all of our F-16 with Gripen. So Gripen will be our single engine fleet.
How about our big baddie? Well, we can go for F-15 or F-18 Shornet (I love F-15 so I prefer F-15).
So we go from our original configuration of Su-35 + F-16V, to F-15 (ideally EX haha) + Gripen.
This F-15EX + Gripen configuration is giving us some advantages than other alternatives of :
1. SU-35 + F-16V
2. Typhoon + F-16V
3. Rafale + F-16V
We can expect some of these pros with F-15EX + Gripen than the other 3 configurations:
- probably more jets, obviously in the single engine side
- lower total operating cost. The very low CPFH of Gripen ($4700 vs $8000 of F-16V) can help to balance out the high CPFH of twin-engine fleet.
- MRO related stuff. Since we have F-16 already, we can assume that there will be no major problem of getting MRO for F-15. But the MRO issue for SU-35, Typhoon, and Rafale surely can't compete against Gripen.
- we can still maintain our current policy to have 2 different sets of fighter (the U.S. + non-U.S.).
- flexibility on weaponry. Gripen can fire almost all that F-15s have. SAAB also already started to introduce AESA for their Gripen.
Can we be clear first, are we talking about Gripen C/D or Gripen NG (E/F)? They're quite a leap with each other though
I don't see the point of replacing the F-16 with the Gripen especially if you're referring to the Gripen C/D which would actually be a downgrade. They are in the same class and the Gripen won't bring much difference in capabilities in the single engine segment, not too mention introducing a more foreign fighter would introduce more costs. Plus the $4700 figure from what I read is for the Gripen C/D, the numbers for the Gripen E/F (NG) aren't there yet considering its new and only a few are undergoing tests currently and its probably going to be a tad bit more costly than the Gripen C/D also considering its a major upgrade of the Gripen by giving it AESA radar as well as newer engine (F414 compared to the RM12 (F404 based) on the Gripen C/D). If you want to compare F-16V it should be with Gripen NG since both are latest developments of each airframe, Gripen C/D is more comparable to earlier F-16C/D while F-16V is comparable to Gripen NG.
And btw if you want to pair the Gripen (Gripen E/F in this case) with a twin-engine, its better to pair it with the Super Hornet. I think engine commonality is a big cost saver and both the Gripen and Super Hornet uses F414's although not interchangeable unlike some of the F100's and F110's on the F-16 and F-15 pairing. In this case Gripen + Super Hornet or F-16 + F-15 pairing is more compatible IMO. Another problem with the Gripen in my opinion is its to short-legged I think in terms of fuel and range.
Plus its no use having the Gripen if the main goal is to have different 2 sets of fighters of US and non-US. The reason I call the Gripen a Swedish F-16 is because it is literally a Swedish American jet, half of its components are American so no use there, the other European options especially the Rafale is better for this particular problem.
I just don't think its worth transitioning to another single engine fighter when its not going to introduce much difference in capability despite cheaper CPFH, you also need to think about the cost of transition. The part I agree with you is the armament flexibility, the Gripen can utilize both American AIM-120's, AIM-9's as well as European IRIS-T, Meteor, etc.
But I get your point and partly agree though, If I was building an air force from scratch the Gripen is something I would certainly be looking at first.
No, it's not hard for me to see that the Air Force's systems and infrastructures are geared towards the US, but it's also seems that it's hard for you to see that the Air Force didn't procure, maintain, upgrade and even aimed to supplement their existing multi sourced fighters because they think that they are all useless, or didn't have specific roles to fill, or because it's absolutely necessary not to put all of their eggs in one basket.
Trust me, if at some point the Air Force ever felt that there's no point in keeping hold of any type of fighters that they have, or if they felt that maintaining a certain type of fighters cost an arm and a leg, then they will happily discard those planes without fanboys like you and your buddies ever need to waste your breath on repeated marketing spins over and over again.
Then why keep saying that US 'fanboys' will never mention about cost, infrastructure, training when thats mostly what US fanboys like Chestnut keep talking about, I mean they probably talk about that more compared to network centric capabilities and engine commonality (which is also considered as infrastructure in this case). Its not that hard to realize either that a jet like the F-16V and F-15 or even the F-35, the jet that is literally meant to replace the F-16 among its operators in the future would probably be more easier on on the introduction cost, infrastructure and training part since both our personnel and pilots would be more familiar with it and already have some experience with them.
And are you sure the AU actually gets to decide what they want to do? I mean if thats the case, I'm all for it. But thats not really what I've been seeing and been told at least hehe
Last edited: