Is Sweden's Gripen fighter jet the answer to Europe's F-35 fears?
-
The answer? Yes. The solution, though? No.
The F35 is the overall more advanced platform. That's simply a fact. But given the current state of the world, it is definitively the correct answer to the US' new attitude.
The solution for the future however is pushing the two big fighter programs currently in development in the EU.
Depends. You want 20 Gripen E/F flying or 2 F-35 ? Because that's the difference in running costs.
-
The F35 is so much more advanced as an operations platform that the two are barely comparable and I say this as a staunch European.
Could you explain why, please?
-
Micael Johansson, the CEO of Swedish company Saab, confirmed to Swedish media that Portugal and Canada are studying whether to buy the JAS 39 Gripen E/F fighter jet.
Looking at the Ukraine and Armenia war I am getting curious about "cheap" drones or drone version of light aircraft. For the price of a Grippen, you can get 100 VL3 (even counting the modification for a drone version). Sure a cool ultra light plane isn't barely as cool as fighter jet.
However, With a swarm of 100, I doubt air defence will intercept all of them even in modern countries. Let alone operations in countries with no air defences
-
Depends. You want 20 Gripen E/F flying or 2 F-35 ? Because that's the difference in running costs.
Running costs are the least of your concerns when shit hits the fan. The F-35 is simply more capable, there's really no way around it. This isn't an issue vs Russia but against China it could be.
-
Could you explain why, please?
I'm not an expert so you should look into this yourself but the way I understand it is that the F35 has leading EFW capabilities, the ability to be fully integrated into a digital battle management system, can coordinate with autonomous drones and also has the best stealth factor.
-
Could you explain why, please?
This was already covered in great detail all over the internet, but the main two factors are:
-
Stealth. The F-35 is much harder to detect, and you can't attack what you don't know is there.
-
Less talked about is "sensor fusion" which aggregates sensor data from the aircraft and others to give a much fuller view of the situation.
-
-
Looking at the Ukraine and Armenia war I am getting curious about "cheap" drones or drone version of light aircraft. For the price of a Grippen, you can get 100 VL3 (even counting the modification for a drone version). Sure a cool ultra light plane isn't barely as cool as fighter jet.
However, With a swarm of 100, I doubt air defence will intercept all of them even in modern countries. Let alone operations in countries with no air defences
Drones have without a doubt changed warfare a ton, but there's still no fighter jet equivalent on speed and impact power. Situation in Ukraine is a bit different as Ukraine doesn't have much hardware to spare and Russians seem to be afraid of modern defences and neither of them have real infrastructure in place for fighter jet maintenance close enough to the front lines.
-
Depends. You want 20 Gripen E/F flying or 2 F-35 ? Because that's the difference in running costs.
This is a question of capability, not economics.
-
This was already covered in great detail all over the internet, but the main two factors are:
-
Stealth. The F-35 is much harder to detect, and you can't attack what you don't know is there.
-
Less talked about is "sensor fusion" which aggregates sensor data from the aircraft and others to give a much fuller view of the situation.
Thanks. This leaves me with follow up questions:
-
If the plane is used for defence, is visibility that important?
-
Sensor fusion is a software feature. Why can't it be replicated in other aircrafts easily?
-
-
Looking at the Ukraine and Armenia war I am getting curious about "cheap" drones or drone version of light aircraft. For the price of a Grippen, you can get 100 VL3 (even counting the modification for a drone version). Sure a cool ultra light plane isn't barely as cool as fighter jet.
However, With a swarm of 100, I doubt air defence will intercept all of them even in modern countries. Let alone operations in countries with no air defences
Drones work now because they are $1000 (random number in the right range), while a patriot missile is $4 billion dollars each. Sure you could shoot a drone down with one, but if you do the enemy will just send more and bankrupt you.
Ukraine has already seen some success using WWII air defense rifles, or hunting shotguns to take out drones, there the cost is around $1 each. It will need more effort, but there is no reason we cannot automate building such things, and from there mass production means drones are no longer cost effective because they get shot down. (note that shotguns have a range of about 50 meters, and the rifles maybe 10km - we need a lot of this on the lines to make a difference, but that means large amounts of mass production and so the cost should be maybe $5-10k each)
-
Micael Johansson, the CEO of Swedish company Saab, confirmed to Swedish media that Portugal and Canada are studying whether to buy the JAS 39 Gripen E/F fighter jet.
The problem with the Gripen is it is a 4th generation fighter. Nice, but it lacks the stealth of the F35 which means you either lose pilots a lot or you keep them well away from the fights. They are still useful in their role, but you want a better plane for a lot of roles that it cannot do. And of course 6th generation fighters are already on the drawing board.
-
Running costs are the least of your concerns when shit hits the fan. The F-35 is simply more capable, there's really no way around it. This isn't an issue vs Russia but against China it could be.
I fail to see a scenario where Europeans and China come into direct conflict. Even if/when China invades Taiwan I don't see the Europeans committing to the Pacific, given the Russian threat directly at home. Therefore the only real war scenario seems to be a direct war with Russia. For this the Gripen should be solid, especially with uncertainty about the availability of some capabilities of the F-35 likely depending on US support.
-
Thanks. This leaves me with follow up questions:
-
If the plane is used for defence, is visibility that important?
-
Sensor fusion is a software feature. Why can't it be replicated in other aircrafts easily?
I dont know the second thing but even defensively, stealth fighters are much more difficult to aim at with guidance systems and such, and it also helps a ton if the enemy doesn't know how many planes you have and where they are from a strategic point of view. Stealth is simply a modern requirement to not be at a severe disadvantage.
-
-
I fail to see a scenario where Europeans and China come into direct conflict. Even if/when China invades Taiwan I don't see the Europeans committing to the Pacific, given the Russian threat directly at home. Therefore the only real war scenario seems to be a direct war with Russia. For this the Gripen should be solid, especially with uncertainty about the availability of some capabilities of the F-35 likely depending on US support.
You're right, but these aircraft will have a service life of at least 20 years, and who knows what the world will look like then? Russia could be a Chinese vassal by that point. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that anybody buys more F-35s, I'm just saying they are not comparable. What needs to happen is Gripen/Rafale short term and a serious fast-tracking of the FCAS.
-
Thanks. This leaves me with follow up questions:
-
If the plane is used for defence, is visibility that important?
-
Sensor fusion is a software feature. Why can't it be replicated in other aircrafts easily?
Sensor fusion is a software feature. Why can’t it be replicated in other aircrafts easily?
It isn't just software. Even the pilot's helmet in the F-35 is highly specialized and has integrated HUD:
-
-
Sensor fusion is a software feature. Why can’t it be replicated in other aircrafts easily?
It isn't just software. Even the pilot's helmet in the F-35 is highly specialized and has integrated HUD:
Why can't the helmet be used in the Gripen?
-
Why can't the helmet be used in the Gripen?
The Gripen doesn't have the systems (hardware or software) to run it. The F-35 was designed from the ground up to use this.
-
The Gripen doesn't have the systems (hardware or software) to run it. The F-35 was designed from the ground up to use this.
The planes are designed to carry several tons of bombs. For sure there must be some space to store some CPUs and memory.
If the helmet is such a key feature then it's worth developing a European version. The good thing about a helmet is that it's easy to replace, unlike other parts of the plane. So the Gripen can be bought right now, and then suppliers can deliver helmets. Have a competition for them and a European helmet industry.
-
The planes are designed to carry several tons of bombs. For sure there must be some space to store some CPUs and memory.
If the helmet is such a key feature then it's worth developing a European version. The good thing about a helmet is that it's easy to replace, unlike other parts of the plane. So the Gripen can be bought right now, and then suppliers can deliver helmets. Have a competition for them and a European helmet industry.
I must not be explaining this very well if that's your takeaway.
-
I must not be explaining this very well if that's your takeaway.
Well, I don't understand how a helmet can be so tightly coupled to a plane. There could be less cameras or less radar systems, but that can't limit the helmet to show whatever the sensors track.
Of course it could limit the helmet somehow, but that's what I want to understand.
