Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Rear stabilizer"?

Under Design it claims that "It has canard control surfaces that contribute a positive lift force at all speeds, while the generous lift from the delta wing compensates for the rear stabiliser producing negative lift at high speeds, increasing induced drag." What "rear stabilizer"? It's a tailless aircraft. The only stablizer it has is the vertical stabilizer, and I don't see how that can generate negative lift. I suspect someone is mixed up here. In a normal tailless delta, the rear portion of the WING has to provide negative lift to raise the nose, especially at LOW speeds. The canard avoids this by providing a means to keep the nose up using POSITIVE life. There is no stabilizer involved, although on a conventional aircraft, the rear stabilizer does indeed use negative lift to raise the nose. The speed alters this effect, since the center of lift changes as the aircraft passes the sound barrier, although if i remember correctly it moves FORWARDS at high speed, meaning you need LESS negative lift. In a canard delta that would mean that the canards would have to create lift to keep the nose us at low speeds, thus creating more drag, but this should even out at high speeds as the center of lift moves forward on the wing. Maybe I have that backwards though. 64.223.104.59 (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that the source is Swedish, it's probably a bad translation. - BilCat (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The Gripen vs. Gripen

In Swedish grammar, the definite article in the singular is generally noted using the suffixes -en or -n for common nouns (e.g. grip "griffin", becomes gripen "the griffin"). Thus, saying "the Gripen" looks and sounds very unnatural for nordic (Swedish, Norweigan, Danish) readers, and is essentially like saying "the the griffin". I took a quick glance at SAABs own communications and they themselves seem to refer to Gripen without putting "the" in front of the name "Gripen".

I suggest removing all relevant instances of "the Gripen", replacing them with "Gripen". Please note that auto-replacing all instances of "the Gripen" with "Gripen" might be a bad idea, since "the" is appropriate in certain cases such as "the Gripen series" or "the Gripen pilot" etc.

— Jnxpedia (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

When to use the article "the" before names and other nouns is mainly a matter of what sounds correct to the ears of native speakers of English. Though there can be differences in the several varieties of English (such as with "hospital", "university", or even "Concorde" in American vs. British English), most varieties are fairly consistent with each other. In general, catering to what an admittedly minor number of non-native users might find awkward, at the risk of making it sound awkward to most native speakers, is probably not a good idea. (This isn't a unique issue - See Hoi polloi#Usage for one notable example.) BilCat (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case, in a purely English context, does it really sound that awkward?

Here are some examples from SAABs official JAS Gripen webpage:

"Gripen is a unique fighter concept, bringing a perfect balance between excellent operational performance, high-tech solutions, cost-efficiency and industrial partnership into one, smart fighter system."

"Saab offers Gripen to Canada"

"An example of such a solution is last week’s special delivery of two Gripen aircraft to the Hungarian Air Force."

"When everything was completed, we flew another of their Gripen back to Sweden to undergo inspection."

"Gripen is unique, offering moderate operational and maintenance costs that no other aircraft comes close to matching."

Source: https://saab.com/air/#gripen-fighter-system%7C61246

Considering the following factors;

(a) "Gripen" is a Swedish word, and as stated in the link you shared, linguists do argue for taking the implicit article (in this case in the form of the -en suffix) into consideration when using these words in an English context,

(b) it sounds horrible for people who speak Nordic languages (Swedish, Norweigan, Danish, Icelandish, Swedo-Finnish, Gutnish, etc), and even for non-Nords the flow is disrupted if "Gripen" is pronounced correctly,

(c) the aircraft is a Swedish invention, by a Swedish corporation, SAAB, and SAAB themselves almost always refer to the aircraft without the "the",

(d) among the sources Wikipedia uses for this article, only ~5% of occurrences of the word "Gripen" uses "the" in front in this way, and a large majority of Google results omits the "the".

I think the (c) and (c) points above are the most important ones, which Wikipedia usually seems to value highly. I suggest a combination of the following:

(a) replace "the Gripen" with "Gripen" or

(b) replace "the Gripen" with "the JAS Gripen" in places where just "Gripen" might risk sounding awkward for non-Nordic English speakers, or

(c) use the pattern "the Gripen x": "the Gripen fighter", "the Gripen aircraft", "the Gripen C", "the Gripen system", etc.

I can happily help with this.

Note that "JAS Gripen" is how the aircraft is predominately referred to within the media and is how I've always heard it spoken myself. If you search this Wikipedia article, many sources refer to the aircraft this way.

— Jnxpedia (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"In this particular case, in a purely English context, does it really sound that awkward?" Yes, it really does sound that awkward, horrible even. BilCat (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to confirm with SAAB what they had to say about the matter:

"Thank you for your email. You are correct in you assumptions.

The correct way to write is “Gripen” (not "the Gripen") or in regards to your examples:

“Gripen is a fighter aircraft used in [...]."

This is also in regards to Gripen C/D/E/F but not in regards to “the Gripen fighter” or “the Gripen pilot” etc.

Best regards,

Charlotte Nilsson

Media Relations Manager

Saab Press Centre

Mobile +46 (0) 734 18 83 76

E-mail charlotte.m.nilsson@saabgroup.com"

— Jnxpedia (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Saab's own website is inconsistent:

• "How FAB is Preparing for the Arrival of the Gripen"
• "Some of the Gripen ordered for the Brazilian Air Force..."
• "Want to see how the Gripen is built?"

I also notice that the site uses "Gripen" as a plural, not "Gripens". Is this a Swedish artifact too? BilCat (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It is always monumentally difficult to translate the grammar rules of one language into another, but it is important that the 'destination' language's rules are also given due consideration. I've checked ten sources used by this article at random: There are clearly more than a ~5% instance rate (unless I was particularly unlucky/lucky) that contained the term "the Gripen". As already noted, even Saab themselves cannot seems to be consistent, their English language press releases often use "the Gripen", it also appears to be the default for Flight International to do so. I struggle to find its use to be inherently wrong at this moment. Kyteto (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Ever since the Flying Barrel (J 29), Swedish combat aircraft are always in definitive form (Lansen, Dranken, Viggen) unlike the normal forms IKEA's bookshelf Billy, Volvo Amazon , Saab Safir and so forth, so it is a very specific case. Been looking through the links above, but I can't seem to find where Gripen is used as plural form?

BP OMowe (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Article split

The article is already at 252,549 bytes, which is well over the recommended 100,000 bytes. It's almost impossible for me to edit the whole article on my tablet, for example. The most likely split would be for the JAS 39E/F variants. Any thoughts? BilCat (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Ping?? BilCat (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Some steps should be taken. But it does not appear to me that splitting the Gripen E/F content will help that much. The Operational history section is the longest, especially the Potential operators and Failed bids subsections. Trimming there and maybe other places would be a better first step, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the failed bids and future operators could be split to a own article since those parts will only grow larger with time. Potential operators and Failed bids can still be linked from the main article.919181512a (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I fully support the Gripen NG getting split out, if nothing else to make it easier to keep track of which version some stat refers to.

BP OMowe (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Honestly the article could probably get split into 3 articles at this point given that it is now just short of 300,000 bytes. Splitting off the Gripen E/F variants into their own article would be a good start given that it would take all of the Potential Operators and Failed Bids for Gripen E/F with it, but performing a second split and giving the operational history for Gripen A/B/C/D its own article is probably also a good move. MK Regular (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the JAS-39A-D and the JAS-39E/F should have separate pages because they're different planes. The F/A-18A/D and F/A-18E/F rightly have separate pages because they are also different planes. Even the CF-18 has a different page than the F/A-18A/D and they're far more similar than the JAS-39C and JAS-39E. The specifications for the Gripen-C and Gripen-E are very different and both planes should not be on the same wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.234.245.142 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the large differences between Gripen A/B/C/D and the new aircraft Gripen E/F (Previously referred to as Gripen NG while under development) a split of the article into two seems appropriate. As shown under Specifications, the differences between JAS 39C/D and JAS 39E/F are substantial and they're entirely different airplanes. Information that previously applied to an older version of Gripen, such as flight costs, might have been true for that older version in the past. However, it becomes misleading if someone interprets that information as applying to the new Gripen E/F.

Benefits from a split would be to clarify what details applies to the older versions of Gripen, and what applies to the new airplane, Gripen E. It would also be a benefit by reducing the overall length of the article since information such as the specs of Gripen E and its development can be separated into a new article. Similarly it would clarify different sections, such as that about avionics and sensors, since the two vary greatly between the two airplanes.

The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) lists the following differences. Size, it's longer and wide, as a result it has more fuel which gives greater range and endurance. It has a different engine which is 20 % more powerful. It has a different improved AESA radar. It has a different interface and avionics. It has a an improved data link, electronic warfare system and infrared search and track. Furthermore, they themselves refer to it as a new airplane (Source).

Another benefit is that it could split the sections of operators, potential operators and failed bids between the two articles, reducing overall length further. Alternatively potential operators and failed bids could be made into its own article that contains failed bids for all variations of Gripen.

Similar to how the article for the F/A-18 Hornet is structured. Under variants it then linked to F/A-18E/F Super Hornet which is as a separate article. Another example would be the Boeing 737 and Boeing 737 MAX which has separate articles, they share the same name, but in practice they're very different airplanes. Art. Pete (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, the Gripen E/F is different enough from Gripen A/B/C/D (and has enough content about it) to justify making a new article about it. If F-15EX has its own article separate from F-15E, I don't see why Gripen E/F shouldn't have their own article.

As for the comments about the Potential Operators and Failed Bids sections being too long, adding a Gripen E/F article would help with that by relocating a fairly significant amount of that content to the new article. MK Regular (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Specifications for the 39/E

Just clicking thru on the Thrust:Weight ratio you'll notice this usually is the T:W at MTOW. With the Gripen/E, if you just add 7,500lb of fuel to the empty weight, without loading the gun or adding a single missile, the T:W ratio is only .875. At MTOW it's a mere 0.60. Seriously, there are plenty of people in the World who can do 3rd grade arithmetic and figure this stuff out, so how about putting some stats here that make sense, not lunacy with a citation?

Also, with an identical 320 sq/ft of wing, the 1,700lb+ heavier /E is given the same wing loading as the /CD, which is obvious nonsense. Furthermore, at MTOW the wing loading is 113lb sqft, not 58lbs sqft. Bending the numbers this hard just makes this page look like a fan-boi wet dream and desperate to everyone else. How about we use some sensible guidelines and make these stats useful for real-world load-outs?

--Solidpoint (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to wiki-hell. Problem is that to change even faulty information that is sourced, you need some reliable sources that state that the previous information is wrong. There might be consensus to remove such things altogether rather than have them included. BP OMowe (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The Philippines are taking interest in the Gripen

ill add this one to the list of countries interested with having a gripen in their military. Outrunno (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Not new. The Philippines is has been listed in the "Potential operators" section for a while. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Brazilian Gripen Saab Embraer test flight.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Combat range

Is the combat range of 1,500km on internal fuel only or using drop tanks? Could someone please edit the article to clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.3 (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Accidents

"The following investigation by the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority led to the conclusion by DNA analysis of the engine that it collided with Phalacrocorax carbo birds at a speed of 304 kn (563 km/h) and height 1,400 ft (430 m).[464][465]"

Could this be changed to the common name, great cormorant? I doubt most people reading about the aircraft are familiar with Latin names for the bird. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be changed and wiki-linked. BP OMowe (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Failed Canadian bid

Currently Canada is listed under the "potential operators" section of Operational History under the Potential Operators section of the page. As the Canadian Gripen E bid has failed in favor of the F-35 Lightning II this section should be moved to the failed bids section of Operational History.

Furthermore Operators, Potential Operators, and Failed Bids seems like something not really even related to the operational history of the type. Enderminion1 (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP Aircraft project guidelines, we don't list possible/potential operators in the Operators section since that can be misleading, etc. And the guidelines say "Potential orders ... should be covered in the main text, either under "Development" or "Operational history", as fits best in the article." Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Top Speed vs Mach Number

The article quotes a maxiumum speed of mach 2 and 2,460 km/h. The km/h figure (which isn't sourced) appears to be roughly the speed of sound at sea level (1,225 km/h) multiplied by 2. However, the Gripen can't do mach 2 at sea level: it's sea level speed is listed as mach 1.15. Mach 2 is only achievable "at altitude" (usually meaning above the tropopause at 30-odd thousand feet/11,000m), where the speed of sound is approximately 1,062 km/h. (The spped of sound varies with temperature and hence with altitude). A correct description of the speed should therefore be something like "Max speed: mach 2 or 2,124 km/h at altitude, mach 1.15 or 1,408 km/h at sea level". Note that Saab's own data sheets claim a sea-level speed of ">1400 km/h".

I've tried to clarify this by editing the artlcle, but the edit's been reverted with the comment "cannot just convert between speed and Mach number like that". However, that appears to be exactly what the original version does, and gets it wrong. The article clearly needs to be changed because no Gripen has ever flown at 2,460 km/h, so if my edit was unacceptable, please advise what change would be.

Sources: Gripen: Saab data sheets linked in the Gripen article. Speed of Sound: Wikipedia's own article on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hws5mp (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

For the JAS 39 E, the Saab references refer to Mach 2 at high altitude and 1400 km/h at sea level, and that's probably what we should say - "high altitude" is too vague to convert to a speed. Note that Spick and Williams both predate the existance of the JAS 39 E so are useless for that model. For the JAS 39C, the Saab references don't refer to speeds at all as far as I can see, while the Aviation Week reference just says Mach1+ - this is consistent with the 2007–2008 Jane's All the World's Aircraft which says "supersonic at all speeds". I haven't seen Spick or Williams so cannot see what they say.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

In addition, I'm not sure why we are using the US Navy flight manual for the F-18E/F , which quotes an unreheated thrust of approximately 13900 lbf for the F-414-GE-400 of the F-18E/F, to cite the thrust for the RM-16, a different model (-39E) of F-414 as used by the JAS-39E - particularly as is RM-16 appears to have greater thrust in afterburner.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The Saab factsheet for the JAS 39C can be downloaded at the bottom of this page: https://www.saab.com/products/gripen-c-series It claims: Max speed at sea level: >1400 km/h Max speed at high altitude: Mach 2

I'm mostly concerned with getting rid of the 2,460 km/h figure, which is clearly wrong. Would you be happy if I changed the four "speed" lines in the article's Specifications section as follows? (I've seen no indication anywhere that the -E is faster than the -C):

Maximum speed: 1400 km/h (1,530 mph, 1,330 kn) + (at sea level) Maximum speed: Mach 2 (at high altitude) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hws5mp (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be extremely wary about carrying over speed data from the 39E (which is significantly more powerful than the earlier aircraft, and is claimed by Saab to be able to supercruise) to the JAS 39C - the extra power is likely to be especially significant at low altitude. Ideally we should wait until someone who has access to the two books that appear to be the source of the speed cited for the JAS 39C.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Two Saab documents claim the same mach =2 & >1400 km/h figures as the 39C for the 39E/NG:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151016220818/https://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-for-brazil/pdf-gripen-ng/gripen-ng-brochure.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160615185236/https://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/pdf-files-download-section/facts/gripen-e-fact-sheet--en.pdf

The 39E isn't THAT much more powerful than the 39C, and it's also significantly heavier. Low-level speed is often limited more by airframe strength than engine power (low altitude buffeting is brutal, especially with a low wing loading), while max speed at altitude is usually limited by airframe heat tolerance (windscreen & radome in particular) irrespective of engine power. I suspect that the 39E's extra power is pretty much used up carrying the extra weight and giving better acceleration, rather than extending the speed envelope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hws5mp (talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Those two documents both refer to the 39E (Gripen NG and Gripen E factsheet) - the obvious example of sheer power making the distance at low altitude is the Spey powered Phantoms for Britain - their greater power made them faster low down, but increased drag made them slower at altitude. To give speeds for the JAS 39C, we need sources that refer to the 39C.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said a couple of exchanges back, the Saab factsheet for the JAS 39C claims the same sea level speed of >1400 km/h and max speed of mach = 2 and can be downloaded EDIT: just realised there's a way to direct link it without downloading: https://www.saab.com/globalassets/products/aeronautics/gripen-c-series/gripen_c_factsheet.pdf Hws5mp (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Cost section is outdated

It is misleading to leave up figures about the F-35's operational costs in 2012, before any variant was actually in service. While I was unable to find any more recent studies as in-depth as the 2012 Janes one, if DoD reimbursement rates over the years are any indication, CPFH of F-35 variants have come down very dramatically and are likely around the same as most other fighters ($10k-$20k depending on what factors are measured). I recommend deleting this section until more modern in-depth data is available. Perhaps the swiss air force procurement study is a good source? I know that it is a more modern comparison that includes these fighters, but given that I can't find a good translation, I do not feel comfortable citing it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:5F52:1600:7195:4A7:81C2:672 (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Bias against Tejas and non American/Germany/British aircraft's with Failed bids section

Bringing to attention the bias against non American/Germany/British aircraft's with Failed bids section. F-16, F-18, F-35 pages don't have failed bids section. Just like in the Eurofighter Tyhoon page, where its Sales and Marketing, suggesting changing the "failed bids" to "Sales and Marketing". Debate has been opened in the Tejas talk page as well. Kindly contribute to make Wikipedia pages neutral across pages rather than let such bias prevail. Mifiin (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, F-16 does have a failed bids section, it's just in the "operators" article, rather than the main article. This Gripen article hasn't been split that way, possibly because there are far fewer countries operating the Gripen (stating that factually, not as a judgment). The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet article has a failed bids section. The F-35 procurement article has a failed bids section. Again, there's way more content on Wikipedia about the F-35 procurement history than there is for the Gripen, so it was split into its own article, and isn't in the main article. This seems like less an issue of bias against non-American/German/British aircraft than it is differences in where the content is placed (i.e. split articles rather than main articles). "Failed bids" are commonly found in articles about American, German, and British aircraft. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)