Nail/Head. There's none to be had and production facilities aren't geared up for a surge. And Sweden isn't (yet) a NATO member so it's not like NATO could backfill for the missing cabs.
Gripen is Ideal Choice for Ukraine
- Thread starter Pukovnik7
- Start date
Five had been delivered to the Brazilian Air Force by the end of September 2022, & the order's been increased from 36 to 40, with negotiations underway for another 26.
Pukovnik7
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
Compared to specifically F-16: F-16 has a rather flimsy undercarriage which means that it will suffer from road operations - less ability to adapt to austere conditions, greater possibility of accidents on landing. Gripen also has shorter turnaround time (10 minutes vs 20 minutes for air-to-air, 20 minutes vs 30 minutes for air-to-ground, if I remember correctly), making it less vulnerable to attack due to less time spent on the ground. Same goes for the engine swap (1 hour vs 2 hours). And Gripen is designed specifically for easy maintenance in the field: most of the things that need to be done can be done without much trouble - all the significant components are basically one removable panel away. You also need far fewer qualified personnel to perform maintenance on Gripen compared to the F-16 - an engineer and five conscripts are what is generally quoted for Gripen, whereas IIRC F-16 requires a crew of about a dozen qualified personnel.
What Gripen gave up is offensive performance, especially air-to-ground. F-16 is somewhat larger and has much stronger engine, meaning it can lug around more ground attack munitions. It has more pylons to mount said munitions (or additional fuel tanks), and likely can launch them from further away (altitude => range). When it comes to air combat, F-16 has better energy performance in a dogfight though inferior turn performance (basically, F-16 is energy fighter, Gripen is angles fighter in this comparison). It will also have better energy performance in BVR combat, meaning that it can attack effectively from further away, whereas Gripen would have to rely on lower RCS and EW suite to come closer to the enemy. Gripen has larger radar than the F-16 due to different nose design (F-16 wasn't even intended to have a radar to begin with, and had to be redesigned to accomodate it), but as I wrote, its ability to exploit that advantage will be limited.
Field conditions = road basing. Essentially, you don't need a hangar or a bunch of specialized tools to perform the engine swap, nor do you need to extensively test the new engine following its installation. It is as close to "plug and play" as fighter jet engines go.
Yes. And I never said you can't use F-16 from dispersed bases - but being able to do it does not mean you can do it as well as the other guy.
"High" is comparative term. Ukrainians generally do one or two sorties per aircraft per day IIRC, but considering that we are talking about relatively short point defense missions, I would not consider that particularly high.
In interview here, "Juice" gives some details:
- normal tempo is one sortie per day
- Ukrainian aircraft are deployed on airfields that would normally not be considered operational, and even secret bases (whatever these are)
- missile strikes, air strikes and spec ops raids are a threat to air bases
Among other things, yes. I've mentioned most of the important stuff earlier in the post.
Question here is: why? If we cannot answer that, then any "lesson learned" is liable to be wrong and consequently dangerous.
From what I have found out however (unless it is confirmation bias), Russia hasn't attempted any more strikes precisely because Ukrainians have dispersed their aircraft. I have written about it back in June, and RUSI also believes that dispersed operations have played a key role in survival of the Ukrainian Air Force. Also, RUSI recommended Gripen as ideal for Ukraine.
So to assume that Western air forces would be immune to missile strikes just because Russians had not devastated UAF with them is a rather dangerous path to take, IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
What about refurbished legacy hornets?
As far as I can tell
Pros-Good stol, tough as guts landing gear, sturdy airframe, certified for practically the entire US/NATO arsenal, multirole, cheapish to run, forgiving flight handling, unlimited alpha, easish serviceability, still comparable avionics performance, amraam/sparrow compatible, plenty of former USN/RAAF/Fin/kuwaiti/malay ground and aircrew about to skills to share. Large fleet availability and spares and corporate know how.
CONS- old, possibly worn out, overt support. Slower, middling range.
But another option possibly
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
FFS, huge numbers of F-16s available along with a massive support chain, they are the only realistic solution assuming the political BS can be overcome.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Really? oh ok. Thanks for that dismissive john. Ill just leave the discussion in your hands then. Im going to step out seeing as the discussion is settled then. FFS
Reasons:
Operating cost of the legacy Hornets are higher by most counts with more or less the same capabilities being delivered by legacy Vipers (link)
There isn't many legacy Hornets left that is worth transferring. Other than the Kuwaiti birds (~30) which are believed to have low hours and operated in dry conditions with aid in their preservation, existing operators (Finland/Malaysia/Swiss/Spain/Canadian) are just holding on to theirs and driving the life out of their airframes while they wait for their replacements.
Jet fighters are not like self-propelled artillery or tanks; fleet replacement programs take at least a decade to complete. No donor countries would want to be left naked for that long. The Kuwaiti have this luxury because they are phasing in the Super Hornets and Eurofighters in numbers since last year.
On the other hand, Vipers of all blocks still see wide demand and we will continue to see them operating in the decades ahead.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Well, fair enough reasoning. I'll leave it there.
The author of the RUSI article appears in this YT video to expand on his reasoning - it's a very good watch I think:
www.youtube.com
Basically, top two choices would be Gripen or legacy hornet - neither of which are available easily. If some way can be found to back fill Sweden to allow them to trade out say, 30 to form a decent fighting force, then that would set the Ukrainians up very nicely, particularly if Meteor could be transferred as well.
Very hard problem to solve however.
Which NATO Fighter is Best for Ukraine?
Dr. Justin Bronk returns to the channel for a livestream discussion about which NATO fighter best suits the wartime needs of Ukraine against the Russians.Rea...
www.youtube.com
Basically, top two choices would be Gripen or legacy hornet - neither of which are available easily. If some way can be found to back fill Sweden to allow them to trade out say, 30 to form a decent fighting force, then that would set the Ukrainians up very nicely, particularly if Meteor could be transferred as well.
Very hard problem to solve however.
Pukovnik7
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #30
That would be my ideal alternative - Hornet is navalized, so adapting it to road operations shouldn't be any issue whatsoever. And in fact, you could go for a combination of F-18 A/B/C/D and Gripen A/B/C/D, seeing how they use what is basically the same engine.
F-18E may be more realistic alternative, however.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One recurring question I have about the idea of Gripen (or some other fighter) being added to the Ukraine inventory to either augment or replace ex-Soviet combat aircraft is what is the timeframe people have in mind for this to happen?
Is this supposed to be something which occurs whilst the current conflict is still ongoing? Or is this discussion more about creating a viable, effective combat airforce for a post-conflict Ukraine?
I ask this question because the amount of time available to introduce new fighters will have a significant impact upon what can be selected to achieve desired outcomes.
It also worth noting, and repeating, that modern conflict is (usually) a system of systems level event. Having discussions about future fighters for Ukraine focus on specific platforms, tends to ignore all the other additional systems which are used by NATO countries and friends/allies to achieve outcomes. In short, by focusing on what the "right" fighter might be, so much of what can might a fighter capability useful and relevant is being ignored.
Also, I strongly suspect that the Ukraine (and Russia too, to a degree) are not used to having air combat be a system of systems event. Evidence which suggests that is the much slower and lower level of datalink integration with and between aircraft and other assets. This in turn would suggest that in order for many or even perhaps most of the benefits available in more modern fighters to be made use of, Ukraine would need to adopt a new system of air combat, and get their personnel trained in fighting using the new system.
Is this supposed to be something which occurs whilst the current conflict is still ongoing? Or is this discussion more about creating a viable, effective combat airforce for a post-conflict Ukraine?
I ask this question because the amount of time available to introduce new fighters will have a significant impact upon what can be selected to achieve desired outcomes.
It also worth noting, and repeating, that modern conflict is (usually) a system of systems level event. Having discussions about future fighters for Ukraine focus on specific platforms, tends to ignore all the other additional systems which are used by NATO countries and friends/allies to achieve outcomes. In short, by focusing on what the "right" fighter might be, so much of what can might a fighter capability useful and relevant is being ignored.
Also, I strongly suspect that the Ukraine (and Russia too, to a degree) are not used to having air combat be a system of systems event. Evidence which suggests that is the much slower and lower level of datalink integration with and between aircraft and other assets. This in turn would suggest that in order for many or even perhaps most of the benefits available in more modern fighters to be made use of, Ukraine would need to adopt a new system of air combat, and get their personnel trained in fighting using the new system.
I’ve read the marketing too, but I can watch what the F-16 can do. It’s funny that all you get with Gripen is an unsubstantiated marketing blurb. The engine change claim is an interesting one. There is a relatively well-known dvidshub video of a ‘hot’ F-16 engine removal in the middle east somewhere. In a dusty, austere and temporary airbase the engine as shown on video can be removed from a fueled, armed with live ordnance ‘hot’ aircraft in under one hour. That’s a normal USAF crew operating in ‘field’ conditions. Presumably they can put it back in, in a similar time too given the common ‘2hr’ reference. Of course that video shows a lot more than just an engine change, but we don’t get those sorts of videos on Gripen for some reason, nor do we get the details on the caveats used in their claims...
I’m guessing at best, but that under 1hr claim wasn’t from a hot aircraft in the middle of the desert, carrying live ordnance to begin with and not drained of fuel, oils, hydraulic fluids and so on… The video I have seen on a Gripen engine installation was at the SAAB factory at Linköping and it took more than 5 personnel at that factory to do it…
The radar dish claim is interesting. There is a lot more to radar than simple dish size obviously, but Gripen C/D‘s PS-05/A radar is commonly quoted as a 550mm wide aperture, while the APG-68 is normally quoted as a 660mm aperture, so…
F-16 is indeed somewhat larger and has a stronger engine, more fuel and so on. Accordingly it has better climb, acceleration, payload and range compared to a C/D and comparable to a Gripen-E, a wider variety of weapons and sensors integrated on the aircraft and at least ‘on par’ technology-wise in every facet with any Gripen model you care to select.
These attributes as well as it’s wide and almost instant availability on the second-hand market or alternatively an active production line for much updated new-build Block 70 aircraft, made me somewhat surprised that the Gripen was summarily declared as the ‘ideal’ aircraft for Ukraine, without any discussion on the topic at all…
I must admit I do wonder whether the dispersed basing capability so touted is because of the superior attributes of the aircraft that facilitate it, or rather the heavily practiced and exercised TTP’s of the Swedish airforce and how much that capability would change, if they were in fact employing another modern fighter in a similar manner?
I’m sure and I suppose that might convey some useful operational advantage in some operational scenario somewhere, though it is only part of the story at best… The RM12 of course being a 1.05ton plus jet engine, still requires a dedicated engine trolley which probably has to qualify as a ‘specialist’ tool and the Gripen like any other aircraft requires specialist ground refuelling equipment, ordnance loading equipment and so on. Even in remote, dispersed areas dedicated EO storage will be required, dedicated fuel storage will be required and so forth, so there are a few ‘hard’ limits as to how much advantage that ‘remote basing’ capability can offer.
True, and to the contrary all I can point to is a 40 odd year history of F-16 real world operations occurring all around the globe in virtually every climactic condition an aircraft can operate in, with few reported problems…
Interesting, I’d be surprised if any modern fighter jet were incapable of handling one sortie per day, so long of course as sufficient support were available.
As for RUSI, they may well be right, though the Ukrainians themselves have been asking for F-16 from what I have seen.
I suppose availability, supportability and the ability to train a force linked to employability will be the real determinate…
Last edited:
Biggest factor seemed to be FOD - the Viper is a giant vacuum cleaner with that big single intake, and to some extent both Typhoon and SH have very powerful engines which move a lot of air front to back with intakes placed low. Brock's conclusion from the RUSI article and from the interview later, was that the Gripen was better suited for FOD risk than many of the contemporary western jets.
I'd agree that it's much more likely that F16's could be found and that they are a more capable jet all around however.
I'd agree that it's much more likely that F16's could be found and that they are a more capable jet all around however.
I have not found any significant data that supports that the F16 is any more FOD prone than other fighters. It does have the advantage over other Fighters in that it's air intake is in front of the nose wheel so that it is not the recipient of anything thrown up by the nose wheel and once it is moving the pressure gradient between the aircraft and the ground would be insignificant. I did look this up some time ago and posted then, but I think that one you get down to ground level there is very little "vacuum effect."
Pukovnik7
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #35
In short, your story about F-16 actually confirms what I wrote: engine swap in two hours. So if F-16 claims are correct, why doubt those for Gripen?
I wasn't able to find Gripen video in "field" conditions, but your claim that we "don't get those sorts of videos for Gripen for some reason" is wrong:
And here:
AESA for Gripen C has 976 T/R modules.
F-16C Block 70 apparently also has 976 T/R modules.
Now, module count isn't everything, but that suggests radars are roughly comparable (at least when both are AESA).
Climb rate is affected by both thrust and wing loading. F-16 has better thrust to weight ratio, but Gripen has better wing loading. Gripen C climb rate is quoted as 254 m/s at sea level, which is exactly the same as that for F-16C. Slovak evaluation did find that F-16 has better climb rate to altitude as well as acceleration compared to Gripen, though.
Because of what I wrote: it doesn't matter how good aircraft is if it has been blown up on the ground. Taiwain does operate F-16 from the road, but again: simply taking off and landing from the road is one thing, extended operations something else...
F-16 also doesn't have Meteor missile integrated, which was a big factor. Of course, if it is integrated, things would change a bit.
As I wrote: you can use any fighter aircraft in the world from roads... F-16, F-35, doesn't matter. But use is one thing, effective use is something else, and unlike F-16, Gripen was designed for road basing from the outset. I already noted that F-16 has flimsy and narrow landing gear compared to both Gripen and F-18... Gripen was also designed specifically to be easy to maintain (not just engine swap, but also extensive maintenance panel access), which is not something I have ever heard of the F-16.
F-18 would be a better choice than F-16, but issue is availability as well as airframe age if you are talking about legacy Hornets...
True, but much of that equipment can be made mobile. Gripen apparently can be deployed with a ground crew of six personnel (one engineer, five conscripts) and two trucks' worth of equipment. Not sure about the F-16, however F-16 requires 33 maintenance man-hours per flight hour, compared to ten for Gripen, so I assume support requirements are more extensive.
As for fuel, Soviets had underground fuel storage for their MiGs. In emergency, you could also deploy fuel trucks - small trucks have capacity of 3 000 gallons and large ones up to 12 000 gallons, while Gripen C has internal fuel capacity of 790 gallons.
So while not everything can be made fully dispersed and mobile, normal operations can be carried out from dispersal air fields. And more decentralized maintenance is, less vulnerable it is to destruction.
As I said: question is logistics and maintenance. It is entirely possible for two fighters to operate from various climate conditions with no difficulty, and for one to be significantly better at it than the other one. Gripen has also been deployed to Libya and Congo, and I haven't heard of any issues either. So on that count at least, neither should be disadvantaged.
I'd say that for the ongoing conflict, it is better to provide Ukraine with Flanker and Fulcrum models as they are already familiar with them... unless there is a lull in fighting, in which case F-16 may well be a better choice than Gripen simply due to far larger numbers available worldwide.
Which is probably what Ukrainians are thinking as well. Plus the fact that USA simply would give a flying ape about Russian pressure, where Sweden may not be so immune.
I don't think the choices are binary.
There is no fixed point in the future where we can say it is time to ditch Russian hardware and switch to NATO equipment, because we simply do not know know when or how the ongoing conflict will "end". It might well end up with a Russian collapse, a dramatic Russian escalation, a slow burn stalemate similar to 2014. All these are on the table, with varying degrees of probability.
Given the uncertainty and the long lead time to get to the level of proficiency for both pilots, maintainers, crews and supply chain needed to operate Western platforms, it make sense to start now rather than later and it should not preclude deliveries of Fulcrums or Flankers if they can be found.
As to which platform (F-16/F-18/Gripen), my gut feel is we are splitting hairs over technical differences that would matter very little on the ground and it would be driven by geopolitical considerations. (E.g what is available on the shelf, whether it can be sustained in numbers, as opposed to technical merits of individual solutions)
The RNZAF MB339 AerMacchis were prone to FOD and their engine inlets were in a similar position to those of the Gripen. There is a video on YouTube of one where the crew had to bang out (eject) because of the engine eating something bad for its health. There is a lot of noise about the Gripen, but AFAIK it hasn't seen combat service. The Gripen cannot lift the same warload as a F-16 and that is a definite consideration. Whilst the Gripen looks good on paper you would still require more than one sortie to deliver the pain that a F-16 can. That means either more aircraft or greater risk of combat damage / losses to the Gripen fleet. My own view is that a F-15 / F-16 combination would be a good fit for the Ukrainians. There are both in the Boneyard that can be reactivated.
I think that people have forgotten what are the Ukrainian AF CONOPS and where woud the Gripen / F-16 / F-18 et al., fit into those. The Ukrainians will have a very good idea of what meets their criteria and if they've asked for F-16s then that is what they think best suits their needs. It is in the end what they decide what's best for them and they definitely would've taken rough field operational capabilities into account.
Posters are reminded to read Air Power 101 for New Members and Why "this vs that" platform discussions are unproductive which give details that should inform this discussion.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One of the issues I have with the discussion circling around the platform is that with much of modern air combat, the kinematic performance has become of lower overall importance. With that fact in mind, I approach the platform selection bit more with an eye towards what is realistically available, what is reasonably available, what can be supported for both the immediate future and longer-term, and then what platform is or will be integrated with what. FWIT I also consider what is still in production and being further developed.
With that in mind, a platform like the F-16 would be a clear preference due to the large numbers produced, active production of a new Block (70) and large variety of ordnance which is integrated with ongoing integration of new weapons as they are developed. Whilst F/A-18 Hornets were also produced in large numbers (albeit smaller than the F-16) with ~1,500 produced between ~1977 and 2000, the design itself has been out of production for over two decades now, and the largest operator of them has retired them from service.
Now the Gripen still has versions in production, but the overall user base is IIRC less than 300 aircraft built worldwide. The potential economies of scale play a role here, because if a current/future Gripen operator decides that their service needs a capability not already available for Gripen (which is more likely due to the relatively small user base) then they need to either pay to have it developed/integrated, wait for someone else to do it for them, or simply do without. The same holds true for the F-16, but with a larger pool of current/former operators. there is a much greater chance of a specific piece of kit or capability being already integrated, or on a schedule to integrate. Also with more aircraft being fielded by more users, the per aircraft costs to develop and integrate a capability become much lower on average.
One of the questions/thoughts I had, was if the Ukraine CONOPS would or should change if it started fielding different fighters like the F-16. My basic conclusions were that the Ukraine could keep the same CONOPS, but if it did so, it would likely miss out on some of the things modern fighter aircraft are capable of with the right support. With that in mind, I feel that the Ukraine would need to start developing a new CONOPS to take advantage of new capabilities whilst the aircraft is selected and procured.
Closer to the ground, because it's a smaller aircraft with shorter landing gear.
Yes but far smaller engine. FOD is usually a problem when it interacts with the nose wheel and is lifted off the ground.
It is very difficult for something big enough to cause engine damage to be sucked up without some form of assistance and the nose wheel can be the culprit in this case though others are known. However dust and small partials lifted by the wind or preceding aircraft can cause communitive damage which can over a period of time lead to failure or loss of performance.
Last edited by a moderator: