Is Sweden's Gripen fighter jet the answer to Europe's F-35 fears?
-
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.
-
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.
One example I should have mentioned earlier is that the F-35 has cameras outside the plane so that the helmet HUD allows the pilot to look "through" the fuselage. It does much more than simply show sensor readings inside the visor.
-
One example I should have mentioned earlier is that the F-35 has cameras outside the plane so that the helmet HUD allows the pilot to look "through" the fuselage. It does much more than simply show sensor readings inside the visor.
Ok, and that's difficult to replicate on the Gripen?
With all the 3D gaming technology I cannot imagine that creating a 3D scene inside a helmet is so difficult that it's worth buying this superexpensive plane instead of paying mabe the price of one plane for 3 companies to develop helmets for a Gripen with some additional cameras.
The plane only has to be better than European opponents, which hopefully doesn't require being better than the F35.
-
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.
Sensor fusion is something that any 4.5 gen fighter is capable of. Cool HUDs and XR is just marketing bling. It doesn't really matter. Scale, sensors, ew, range, load and cost benefit matter.
F-35 is good if you need first strike tactical nuke capabilities today. Or small carrier capabilities. However, modern sensors can probably catch your F-35s quite early on anyway. The extra stealth might be good if you're fighting goat herders with Soviet AA and radars from the 50s. But hey, then you can just go for an upgraded F-16 with some fancy EW.
Any rational state actor should skip 5th gen, push their 4.5s to the limit and go for unmanned gen 6+.
-
-
Sensor fusion is something that any 4.5 gen fighter is capable of. Cool HUDs and XR is just marketing bling. It doesn't really matter. Scale, sensors, ew, range, load and cost benefit matter.
F-35 is good if you need first strike tactical nuke capabilities today. Or small carrier capabilities. However, modern sensors can probably catch your F-35s quite early on anyway. The extra stealth might be good if you're fighting goat herders with Soviet AA and radars from the 50s. But hey, then you can just go for an upgraded F-16 with some fancy EW.
Any rational state actor should skip 5th gen, push their 4.5s to the limit and go for unmanned gen 6+.
I don't necessarily disagree with your take here, but this is all conjecture until we see a 5th-gen in real combat. There was that story about an Israeli F-35 sneaking right up to a... I forget what, Syrian AF probably, but even if that anecdote really happened we haven't really seen them used in anger. As I said elsewhere here, China is really the only one who'd offer a near-peer opponent (unless god forbid the US go so far off the rails that they turn on NATO).
-
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.
Fingers crossed for Flygsystem 2020 -
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.
I cannot comment on this because I’m just a mere civilian
-
This is a question of capability, not economics.
They're the same thing. War has casualties; in the long run the important thing is who runs out of stuff first.
That said, I'm not sure the cost difference is actually 10x. But, the survivability difference could be quite large.
-
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.
The way to run it would be dispersed across the wilderness and not in the air for too long at any one time. That was Sweden's plan (and why it's built to resist ingestion of loose rocks among other things), and it would be Canada's as well just on a much larger scale. That may or may not be enough to overcome the lack of stealth, though. It's hard to say with public information.
The rest of the EU has a bit of a wilderness shortage, so probably it's not a good fit. South Korea has an F-35 clone they're selling, or the EU could break their agreement with the US and just code their own jailbroken software for the F-35.
-
The advantage with the Gripen is that the Americans can't turn it off on a whim
-
They're the same thing. War has casualties; in the long run the important thing is who runs out of stuff first.
That said, I'm not sure the cost difference is actually 10x. But, the survivability difference could be quite large.
I'm no specialist but the f35 seems to cost somewhere around 25-44.000 dollars per flight hour depending on type, the JAS somewhere around four to six thousand.
-
I'm no specialist but the f35 seems to cost somewhere around 25-44.000 dollars per flight hour depending on type, the JAS somewhere around four to six thousand.
Yep, that actually checks out. Which is interesting, because just the purchase cost is much closer (40-50 vs. 90-110 million).
It's still doing a lot better than older stealth planes, though, from everything I've heard.
-
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.
If EU does not start investing into its own fighter they will never have one as capable as the american ones.
We need to stop thinking in short-term solutions
-
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.
FCAS is the answer, not Gripen or for that matter Eurofighter or Rafale.
-
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)
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.
I agree with the point but these numbers are some orders of magnitude off. A patriot missile is typically 4 million dollars (so not billion). Drones vary widely depending on the type. Man-portable scouting drones can go as low as a few hundred dollars. I don't think a patriot missile would ever target something that small flying that low though. The Iranian Shahed is estimated to cost around $30-50k. Russia produces its own upgraded version (better navigation systems, bigger warheads, etc.) that costs around $80k.
Even then, you can make 50 drones for the cost of a single patriot. The economics are not favourable.
-
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.
The last sentence is the one important one.
Any Plattform bought at the moment has it's downsides. Grippen/Raffaele/Typhoon all have massive downsides in terms of capabilities, survivability, integration. They can be overcome by now, but the difference to the F35,F22, Su57, and similar aircraft will only become bigger - and that doesn't even consider the sixth generation fighters that will enter the market during their lifetime.So any European jet can only be a bridge for Europe finally get their fucking act together and get the whole FCAS Plattform up and make that shit competitive.
Which is absolutely possible, necessary and mit be achieved at all costs.
