4 ms·

The F-35 has a STOVL model if that's somehow relevant, which is superior to the Gripen in both stealth and ability to operate from improvised bases While Ukrai

by breppp 1y ago

The F-35 has a STOVL model if that's somehow relevant, which is superior to the Gripen in both stealth and ability to operate from improvised bases While Ukraine was able to use drones to attack Russian airbases, this was not the way Israel overpowered Iran, whose main driving factor was F-35s rather than drones (although these were present) Edited: STOVL not VTOL

bigyabai 1y ago
Only the F-35B, and it has to sacrifice performance in speed and maneuverability to get there. The Gripen still boasts a number of advantages (and higher G-loading) if you aren't penetrating hostile airspace.
- wbl 1y ago
  If you aren't penetrating hostile airspace to bring the war to the enemy are you even an air force?
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Yes? The most common justification for having any air force at all is the interceptor role. Dozens of nations have legitimate, blooded air forces that exclusively serve the interception/CAP mission profile. Many are near-peer threat actors if things go wrong.
    - wbl 1y ago
      That air force is going to face attrition the enemy does not and be unable to support operations that break into the enemy rear. I'd rather fight on their land than mine.
- philwelch 1y ago
  Any VTOL/STOVL jet has to trade off other performance qualities for VTOL/STOVL capability. Likewise, the Gripen still needs a longer runway, which limits the use of “improvised” airfields. In practice the main benefit of STOVL has been in naval aviation. CATOBAR carriers are expensive and challenging to build, especially if you don’t have the economy of scale of building a dozen of the same class instead of just the 1-2 most countries can actually afford. A STOVL jet can also operate from an amphibious assault ship. The feasibility of the “improvised airfield” concept with modern jets is unproven and controversial, while STOVL naval aviation has been successfully done for decades.

by breppp 1y ago

bigyabai 1y ago

Only the F-35B, and it has to sacrifice performance in speed and maneuverability to get there. The Gripen still boasts a number of advantages (and higher G-loading) if you aren't penetrating hostile airspace.

wbl 1y ago
If you aren't penetrating hostile airspace to bring the war to the enemy are you even an air force?
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Yes? The most common justification for having any air force at all is the interceptor role. Dozens of nations have legitimate, blooded air forces that exclusively serve the interception/CAP mission profile. Many are near-peer threat actors if things go wrong.
  - wbl 1y ago
    That air force is going to face attrition the enemy does not and be unable to support operations that break into the enemy rear. I'd rather fight on their land than mine.
philwelch 1y ago
Any VTOL/STOVL jet has to trade off other performance qualities for VTOL/STOVL capability. Likewise, the Gripen still needs a longer runway, which limits the use of “improvised” airfields. In practice the main benefit of STOVL has been in naval aviation. CATOBAR carriers are expensive and challenging to build, especially if you don’t have the economy of scale of building a dozen of the same class instead of just the 1-2 most countries can actually afford. A STOVL jet can also operate from an amphibious assault ship. The feasibility of the “improvised airfield” concept with modern jets is unproven and controversial, while STOVL naval aviation has been successfully done for decades.