It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The underdog - The Saab Gripen

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 05:22 AM
Who wants a light fighter with exorbitant rates?The countries who are likely to buy a light fighter are building one. Other need maximum bang with their bucks , so they are going for heavier one. So there is extremely limited market for Gripens. Besides Sweden has notorious laws for countries who wish to fight with Swedish supplied ware.

posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 10:34 AM
Its comparable to an F-16 block 60 , with similar mission profiling (primarily air to air dogfighting , with longer range systems and A2G capability as well)

posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 10:36 AM
prefer the car version i had .. but now i just switched to biodiesel


posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 02:05 PM
sorry but the F16 is an asse they really should have put the money in to the F20

posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 03:25 PM
The F-16 is one of the most capable jets today. It can perform a range of mission not just one. Plus its reliable and very cost affective.

posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 04:24 PM
The Gripen is my favorite foreign (I'm from the US) aircraft. Sweden has always made top-quality aircraft and this one is so impressive. It is like a super upgraded F-16, and it has low RCS, high maneuverability, some of the best avionics available, unmatched situational awareness, it needs very little landing/take off room, it's just magnifico.

posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 04:25 PM
Also, I'm a fan of heavier fighters, but truthfully, larger numbers of smaller fighters are proven to be better than fewer "more capable" fighters.

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:26 AM
the tigershark wasn`t as good as the viper , so the right choice was made.

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:13 AM
romania , slovakia and venezuela are all looking at the gripen to replace mig`s , and since the brazilian FX-BR project is on hold , it looks like brazil will lease 10 - 12 gripens instead.

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:33 AM
Planes with canards are also harder to stall. I can't remember the technical explanation for why right now, it's 4am, and I haven't slept yet which is bad because I have to be best man in a wedding later, but some of the videos of them pulling manuvers are pretty insane. People used to say they CAN'T stall, but they're just harder to stall than a "normal" plane and recover faster when they DO stall.

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:42 AM
I think, though I too am unsure, that it is something to do with the fact that the canards produce lift whereas a tail produces downforce so the aircraft stays controllable at lower speeds than a non canard as the nose is 'steerable', when a canard equipped plane does stall, as it picks up speed whilst falling the nose of the aircraft becomes controllable very quickly and allows the pilot to pull out and recover to normal flight.

Well, something like that.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by waynos]

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:26 AM
Canards do provide lift, small in relation to the main wings, and are designed to stall before the main wings. The basic idea ia that the canard will stall, and that small amount of lift ahead of the CoG is lost, which will cause the nose to drop. All the while, laminar flow is maintained over the main wings and control surfaces.

At least thats as best as I can remember it... been a while since i've cracked open an aeronautics book

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Donner]

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:57 AM
that sounds much more plausible than my attempt

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 05:56 AM

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Personally, this is one of my favourite aircraft, especially as BAe are involved with it! (Fantastic eh? Cant get the Typhoon finished but they can produce a capable aircraft like the Gripen when partnered with Saab

I wish the UK would consider buying some Gripens, as they are very nice aircraft .

I agree, the gripen was the first of the current new breed of aircraft from a country that has a small population.
Orrrrsum product and looks great.

I wouldn't say underdog either.
You could also call it a single engine version of Rafale/Typhoon

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Jezza]

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:40 AM
The fact that a country with a population less than New York City can design, build, and deploy a cutting-edge aircraft in so short a time ought to cause us to reflect.

The fact is, this aircraft has been in squadron service for years already, while our own F-22 (no doubt a very capable aircraft) is just beginning to enter service. This is not confidence-inspiring. The F-22 is what, a 15 or 20 year old design? Yes, we are still ahead of most of the planet, but the gap is narrowing very rapidly.

The US defense-industrial complex is in dire need of reform. Both the absurdly inflated budgets of major projects, and the huge lead times, represent threats to the US's capabilities should major conflicts arise - which given our current foreign policies, they almost certainly will.

[edit on 6/27/05 by xmotex]

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:35 AM
I think it's rather funny that Sweden developed such a great aircraft and Britian can't, despite the fact they have the resources and designs to do it. And the Gripen design is really surprising, since Britian came up with an identical design back in the late 1970's and didn't bulid it! Instead, they wasted time and money, joining other countries in a long bickering match over how to design their next fighter, and getting it wrong. Britian, as well as other countries, next to take a good, long look at Sweden, then at their own, and realize they can design great aircraft themselves. And with out breaking the bank.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:49 AM
This is a wonderful low cost reusable spare part aircraft. All components on the base structure of the Gripen is from the time tested F-16 program, The U.S. has found a strategic placement for its soon to be retired F-16 fleet wih modifications and industry support.

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 05:58 PM
It's a nice little plane, very advanced avionics.

Two problems with it now: the best missile it is compatible with right now is the AIM-120B, which is ok, but not good enough, and it has an inadequate T/W ratio. It uses a Hornet-type engine, and it only has one.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:36 AM
I was talking with my friend from Czech republic [they have 12+2 machines from Sweden for 20 years], but he was very angry with them. From first six machines, one was unable to fly, so it was not able to tranport to CR. Other three the Czech Air Force cannot use, because they have technical problems. All six planes have uncompatibile weapon pods for missiles AIM-9M [ordered together with Gripens :-], electronic systems are not compatibile with NATO and standard NATO UHF communication is jamming Gripens navigation system above Czech sky.

I agree that it is modern and nice looking plane, but when it is used by other air force than Sweden Air Force, there are much trouble.

PS: My friend also said, that flying Gripen is harder because it has lower thrust to weight ratio than before 1994 served MiGs-29.

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 05:58 AM
very interesting - maybe there the first run , before compatability with nato weapons has been introduced? Any update on the experience now?

<< 1   >>

log in