Gripen demonstrator rolled out

[swerve]

But does the classic definition carry any meaning in operational terms? IOWs is LM right in redefining the term?

Whether it does or not, I object on principle to any marketing-based redefinition*. If they want a new meaning, invent a new term. The operational meaningfulness or otherwise of the real meaning of supercruise is not relevant: it exists, & has a definite meaning. Change it, & you lose that meaning, & have to use a convoluted explanation.

*Ditto for political propaganda-based redefinitions, such as Margaret Thatchers redefinition of federal to mean unitary, & the (sadly successful, in the USA) US right-wing redefinition of liberal to mean authoritarian statist.

I won't give up on this. Anyone who insists on using the LM redefinition is going to have to accept that I'll correct them.

 

[Grand Danois]

I won't give up on this. Anyone who insists on using the LM redefinition is going to have to accept that I'll correct them.

LOL. I have the same obsessions, also on misuse of language (but look at it from a diff perspective). The classic definition is technically right, but totally unsuited to be used in a sales pitch... this is where the LM definition fits, and is useful for discussion. Anyone have suggestions for a new term? Like "tactical supercruise" or "operational supercruise..."

And does the SAAB usage "true supercruise" refer to the classic or the LM definition, or have they invented their own?

 

[swerve]

LOL. I have the same obsessions, also on misuse of language (but look at it from a diff perspective). The classic definition is technically right, but totally unsuited to be used in a sales pitch... this is where the LM definition fits, and is useful for discussion. Anyone have suggestions for a new term? Like "tactical supercruise" or "operational supercruise..."

And does the SAAB usage "true supercruise" refer to the classic or the LM definition, or have they invented their own?

1. "Operational supercruise"? Agreed that some sort of term is useful. BTW, I find the obsessive niggling over minutiae sometimes engaged in when supercruise is discussed quite irritating, despite my views on meaning. For example, the EE Lightning is said to have been able to cruise supersonically on dry thrust, though not for a significant time, as its range was so short in any case, but it's reported that on the rare occasions when it did (never operationally, AFAIK), it used afterburner to accelerate through the highest drag zone around M1, because doing so actually used less fuel (a crucial consideration for a Lightning) than the much slower (as demonstrated in tests) transition on dry thrust. I've been told that therefore, it wasn't supercruising, since afterburner had been used at some point. The fact that afterburner was used (counter intuitively) for fuel economy, was rejected as irrelevant: "pure" supercruise requires eschewal of afterburners, & is forever tainted once they've been used, regardless of operational considerations. It's almost religious.

2. Interesting question . . . but at least they're using a modifier, even though I don't like the one they've chosen. Perhaps "full supercruise" would be better. BTW, I like the way they describe the current Gripen supercruising abilities - "only on a cold day in Sweden". Refreshing, compared to the hype one often gets.

 

[rjmaz1]

Perhaps "full supercruise" would be better.

How an aircraft that can "supercruise" with no weapons, less than 23% fuel, a pilot under 60kg, a 3 degree dive profile and a 30 knot tail wind? But wait it hit Mach 1 with dry thrust that means i can call it a supercruising aircraft right?

Now that wouldn't be very realistic or useful. If that meets the definition then lets say hi to the supercruising F-14/15/16!

You have to think about why Saab mentioned the word supercruise in the first place.

The whole point was to get sales by painting a false image that it is in the highest speed class and has the fuel and range to make it tactically useful. It fails on all counts.

Btw the widely regarded meaning of supersonic is when all the air around the aircraft is greater than the speed of sound. That is often as high as mach 1.2 depending on wing sweep. LM are simply educating people that Mach 1 is NOT supersonic. Being smack bang in the middle of the most ineffecient cruising speed possible, can not be associated with the word cruising.

The definition Saab should use would be "transprint". That would fit perfectly. Being able to to hit the transonic speed region with dry thrust. Sprint also fits nicely as its range would be reduced by a massive 50+% just because it decided to travel ~20% quicker.

Heres some reading for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transonic

Hang on i think i should startup my own aircraft company! I'll create my own definition of super cruise. Anything that travels over 200km/h gets the supercruise label. After all i could technically launch the aircraft into orbit on the shuttle and during re-entry it will be cruising supersonic for most of the way under its own power. Sure it cant do it normally but who cares if its good enough for Saab its good enough for me

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

IMO supercruise is misleading term. Only the Concord had real supercruise. Every military platform i know of doesnt cruise at supersonic speeds, they need Mil power to achieve supersonic flight. Therefore none of them cruise.

Anyway "F22 like" supercruise is a different kettle of fish to "Eurocanard" like supercruise, which ever defintition you want to use.

 

[swerve]

...
Btw the widely regarded meaning of supersonic is when all the air around the aircraft is greater than the speed of sound. That is often as high as mach 1.2 depending on wing sweep. LM are simply educating people that Mach 1 is NOT supersonic. ..

No, LM accepted that definition until they realised it described what Typhoon could do, then suddenly dropped it and came up with a new definition. I don't know what LM are paying you for your support, or whether you do it for nothing because of an emotional attachment to them, but any objective analysis of the changes in LMs position tends to lead one towards the suspicion that the LM definition of supercruise is "whatever F-22 can do that Typhoon* can't do". :

LM isn't into educating people about Mach 1, it's trying to indoctrinate people into accepting a corporate image of LM as the most capable aerospace company in the world. That's OK, they're a commercial firm: as long as they don't tell lies, stressing the positive is playing the game within the rules. But that anyone should be so gullible as to swallow the corporate line completely makes me rather sad.

*Until another fighter, e.g. PAK FA, surpasses Typhoon: then substitute the new name.

 

[Dr Freud]

LOL

Mach 1 is NOT supersonic.

IMO supercruise is misleading term. Only the Concord had real supercruise

Without wishing to denigrate those individuals and/or marketing boys that want to re-define supercruise for personal opinions and/or marketing purposes, but lets stick to the classic definition here:
A supercruising aircraft is able to cruise at supersonic speeds in level flight without the use of afterburners.

List of aircrafts with supercruise capability:

Aircraft with supercruise include:

* Concorde (required afterburners to initially surpass Mach 1)(retired)
* Eurofighter Typhoon
* F-22 Raptor
* JAS 39 Gripen[4](original Gripen only on a cold day with external tank, 4 AMRAAM and 2 sidewinder)
* Tupolev Tu-144(retired)
* XB-70 Valkyrie (never entered production)
* YF-23 Black Widow II (never entered production)
* English Electric Lightning (The first aircraft capable of supercruise), (required afterburners to initially surpass Mach 1) (supposedly never operationally)(retired)

 

[Grand Danois]

LOL
Without wishing to denigrate those individuals and/or marketing boys that want to re-define supercruise for personal opinions and/or marketing purposes, but lets stick to the classic definition here:
A supercruising aircraft is able to cruise at supersonic speeds in level flight without the use of afterburners.

Except that this definition has little operational use, hence why the marketing boyz could have been said to have good reason to redefine the term.

Btw;

Cruise (flight)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cruise is the level portion of aircraft travel where flight is most fuel efficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_(flight)

Cruise is most certainly not at speeds close to M1.0 nor significantly inside the transonic regime.

Semantically, the LM marketing boys are more accurate in their usage; the classic definition just snatched the definition first.

 

[Dr Freud]

"Except that this definition has little operational use" -->do you have a source for this statement ? or was it just your and/or marketing boys opinion ?
hence why you and/or the marketing boyz could have been said to have good reason to redefine the term.

btw
I wasnt talking about cruise, i was talking about supercruise. cruise and supercruise has two different meanings. a blowlamp or blowfly isnt the same as blow, just because they have the word "blow" in it.
I actually was first thinking about using the anecdote of a cocktail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocktail

 

[Grand Danois]

I wasnt talking about cruise, i was talking about supercruise. cruise and supercruise has two different meanings. a blowlamp or blowfly isnt the same as blow, just because they have the word "blow" in it.
I actually was first thinking about using the anecdote of a cocktail.

So what does cruise mean when used in an aviation context?

And generally: please note that supercruise in the classic definition is excellent as a benchmark of achievement.

 

[JHC]

iam no expert here, but i think that its just a play.

I saw a program on Indian tv where a reporter compared all fighter competing in the Indian fighter program. There he said that gripen had supercruise among some of the other competitors, i mean its just for winning the public. the real buyer will know the full capabilities of the fighter. Just look in Sweden the opinion has a big voice in such matters, its been allover the news now when sweden said they were gonna uppgrade the gripen c/d to e/f, since thats a demand from Norway if the gonna buy the gripen.. its allways a fuzz when it comes to defence related matters that takes alot of the taxpayers money.

 

[rjmaz1]

No, LM accepted that definition until they realised it described what Typhoon could do, then suddenly dropped it and came up with a new definition.

Really.

So LM original definition for supercruise meant sustaining mach 1 without afterburners?

I find that hard to believe as LM never advertised the F-16 as having supercruising ability, when according to its "original" definition it did? Maybe the marketing boys at Lockheed missed that one.

How come Boeing when selling its F-15 to singapore never mentioned the word supercruise? If boeing had that universally adopted meaning of supercruise which is Mach 1, dry thrust with no weapons then it surely would have put supercruise on the F-15's spec sheet?

Or maybe the definition has always been in a realistic combat configuration, in realistic conditions. In which case none of the teen series could meet the supercruise criteria.

Aircraft with supercruise include:

You could add another 20 fighters to that list if your definition is Mach 1 at dry thrust without weapons.

None of those manufacturers ever mentioned the word "supercruise". Could that possibly be because Mach 1 without weapons and dry thrust doesn't fit the definition?

Dr freud maybe you should get in contact with the marketing boys at the various aircraft manufacturers so that you can educate them on your definitioon of supercruisie?

 

[Sintra]

Really.

So LM original definition for supercruise meant sustaining mach 1 without afterburners?

I find that hard to believe as LM never advertised the F-16 as having supercruising ability, when according to its "original" definition it did? Maybe the marketing boys at Lockheed missed that one.

How come Boeing when selling its F-15 to singapore never mentioned the word supercruise? If boeing had that universally adopted meaning of supercruise which is Mach 1, dry thrust with no weapons then it surely would have put supercruise on the F-15's spec sheet?

Or maybe the definition has always been in a realistic combat configuration, in realistic conditions. In which case none of the teen series could meet the supercruise criteria.

Swerve described exactly what happened, Lockheed Martin made a big HURRA about the "supersonic flight in dry regime" of the Raptor, also known as "supercruise", that definition was changed right after Eurofighter GMBH claimed that it´s fighter was a also a "supercruiser". The European company responded stating that the Typhoon had a 1.5 mach top speed in Dry thrusth (without mentioning the conditions of course).
And if your definition of a realistic combat configuration his 6 BVRAAM´s+ 2 SRAAM´s, five ton´s of internal fuel at mach 1.2/1.3 in dry regime for a 250 NM "dash" plus a 30 minutes flight in subsonic cruise you have just described Eurofighter oficial documents.
(h)ttp://tmor.rafale.free.fr/Eurofighter_Capability.pdf

 

[swerve]

Really.

So LM original definition for supercruise meant sustaining mach 1 without afterburners?

I find that hard to believe as LM never advertised the F-16 as having supercruising ability, when according to its "original" definition it did? Maybe the marketing boys at Lockheed missed that one.

How come Boeing when selling its F-15 to singapore never mentioned the word supercruise? If boeing had that universally adopted meaning of supercruise which is Mach 1, dry thrust with no weapons then it surely would have put supercruise on the F-15's spec sheet?

Or maybe the definition has always been in a realistic combat configuration, in realistic conditions. In which case none of the teen series could meet the supercruise criteria.

You could add another 20 fighters to that list if your definition is Mach 1 at dry thrust without weapons.

None of those manufacturers ever mentioned the word "supercruise". Could that possibly be because Mach 1 without weapons and dry thrust doesn't fit the definition?

Dr freud maybe you should get in contact with the marketing boys at the various aircraft manufacturers so that you can educate them on your definitioon of supercruisie?

1. Nobody except you is saying at Mach 1. Exceeding Mach 1.
2. It wasn't a marketing point in the past for good reasons. As you correctly say narrowly exceeding M1 unarmed, on internal fuel, in dry thrust, for a short time, is not operationally useful, so what's the point of using it for marketing?
3. When the F-15 was offered to Singapore, it was up against an aircraft which beat it hollow on that criterion. Why advertise your rivals strengths?

It became a marketing point when LM started pushing it, & LM had good grounds for pushing the abilities of the F-22, since it did (& does) do things that no other fighter currently can. Others then started pointing out that their aircraft could do what LM was claiming only the F-22 could do. LM then had to either change its terminology, or change the definition, to distinguish between what only the F-22 can do & what others can also do.

It looks to me as if this whole debate began with sloppy marketing talk by LM. They made claims which, to their embarrassment, they realised were false ("only the F-22 can do this"), & rather than say "Sorry, what we really meant was 'only the F-22 can do this'" (something slightly different), they redefined the term.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There's a few people in here who are losing their manners and need to start remembering the rules that revolve around acceptable behaviour and decorum.

The next one who steps over the line of what is regarded as civil engagement is going to the sin bin.

Leave the teenage angst at home and most definitely leave the nationalistic angst at home.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Boys this is all semantics. Who cares about the definitions? Fact is Typhoons operational "supercruise" is a different beast to F-22A's operational "supercruise". If they both want to use the term, then thats fine by me (personaly), but the distinction needs to be drawn between the two.

 

[Dr Freud]

I agree that supercruisers are different beasts vs non-supercruisers, and F22 is a different beast again vs other supercruisers,(for now).

And equally important to how fast they can supercruise is: how long ??

Just crunched some numbers on the exclusive club that can supercruise operationally:
F22: 390 nm supercruise combat radius. (unknown speed)
Gripen NG: 302 nm supercruise combat radius. (1 external tank) @M 1.1 #52 min
EF: 206 nm supercruise combat radius. @M 1.2 #28.5 min


for reference: in afterburner
F22 (unknown)@ M. 2+ (internal fuel only)
Gripen NG 11 min @ M. 2+ (internal fuel only)
EF Typhoon 8.7 min @~M. 2 (internal fuel only)

It is obvious that during afterburn, the aircraft burn so much fuel (~4 times as much!) so it is limited to 1) give the a2a missile highest possible initial speed, and 2) outrun an incoming missile.

Another thing i think is important is: what is their respective cruise speed ? cruise speed as in fuel efficient speed.?

If anyone know this: kindly respond

 

[Grand Danois]

This may somewhat clear up what SAAB means with "true supercruise".

"With an output of over 22,000lb (98kN), the F414G (below) produces 20% more thrust than the Gripen's current Volvo Aero RM12 powerplant, and will enable supercruise performance of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air weapons, says marketing director Magnus Lewis-Olsson. Ground testing up to full afterburner use has been completed, and aircraft integration took place in March."

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...raft-to-highlight-gripen-ng-capabilities.html

A sleek jet like the Gripen should have a narrow, low amplitude, transonic regime "hump".

 

[Dr Freud]

Thanks for the link GD.
I noted another sentence

A new main landing gear housed in the wing root has freed up space for 40% more internal fuel,

and i must ask : why didnt they do this trick in the first place ??
The way i see it, endurance is as important as anything else

 

[JohanGrön]

The "first" Gripen 39:s where made with Swedens strategical battleplan in mind and the extended legs of most US planes was never a prerequisite.

Only relatively recently it was deemed as important by SAAB in respect to potential customers.