Um, check again. http://www.gripen.com/en/index.htm
It's a "roll-out" not a "flight". It means it's just a presentation for VIPs and some press on the "Gripen Demo" aircraft.
Gripen - Red Flag
- Thread starter chrishorne
- Start date
- Status
It's a "roll-out" not a "flight". It means it's just a presentation for VIPs and some press on the "Gripen Demo" aircraft.
I believe that might have to do with the Swedish Air Force goal of being able to use the backseat in the two-seater as "mini-AEW&C".
Did I get something wrong now or is the "Gripen Demo" a two-seater, since it's built in a former Gripen B.
@zeven
You have no idea how much automatic control, PID-loops, advanced programming there is in a "FBW-fighter", and by changing some of the hardware you also have to change allot in its software.
And I just have the slightest idea on how much there is.
Last edited:
yes it´s a B version. the demonstrater are build from.
but NG will come in both A/B versions,
Rattmuff, i´m well aware of it, but we were talking about major airframe changes, and there isn´t any.
the upgrade of software, in gripen is very very simply and is done in the matter of hours, the entire concept behind Gripen was build on it..
but we can debate about this, depending on how we define "alot of work" but you´re right in a certain way, because all software and hardware will be upgraded.
but NG will come in both A/B versions,
Rattmuff, i´m well aware of it, but we were talking about major airframe changes, and there isn´t any.
the upgrade of software, in gripen is very very simply and is done in the matter of hours, the entire concept behind Gripen was build on it..
but we can debate about this, depending on how we define "alot of work" but you´re right in a certain way, because all software and hardware will be upgraded.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
There is one or 2...
The landing gear is being moved from it's current position in the fuselage to under the wing roots, with "bulges" being created to accomodate them, the resulting space in the fuselage is where the extra internal fuel is coming from...
Such will require a significant amount of effort to design, test and validate.
The additional hardpoints under the fuselage will require significant weapons carriage and separation testing.
I'm sure others can expand on the work that needs to be done to an aircraft when aerodynamic changes to the aircraft are made...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
No, it has an explosive weight of 2000lbs...OK, I'll introduce a little amateurish calculation!
It was asked earlier what the range of the F-35 was to the Gripen NG with a similar mission and loadout, ie 600 nm and 90 min cap with 4 aam. However the ranges given are for dissimilar missions!
From the JSF presentation to Norway:
Optimal Cruise
Maritime Patrol Mission
Sensors Employed:
! EW
! Radar
! EOTS
Weapons Load:
!AIM-120 (2)
!GBU-12 (2)
!Internal Gun
!Countermeasures
The resulting radius is 740 nm
(or total distance of 1480 nm)
The range of altitudes during the
cruise is 33,200 ft to 40,400 ft
I have no books on aeronautical engineering on my bookshelf, so I'll use an equation for range by jet propulsion from wikipedia; it seems the conditions fits for a first order approximation for the cruise part:
When cruising at a fixed height, a fixed angle of attack and a constant specific fuel consumption, the range becomes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aircraft).
Range 2k lbs munitions (R_2k) = 1480 nm
Question: What is range for F-35A with 4 AAMS or R_aam?
OK dump the 2 x 2k ordnance, replace with 2 x AIM-120 at 335 lbs apiece. This would shave ~3300 lbs off take-off weight. 29k empty plus 18.5k fuel plus 1.5k ordnance = 49k lbs take-off.
Assuming all else being equal, reduce and solve the equation, it boils down to:
R_aam = (((sqrt(W_aam1)-sqrt(W_aam))/(((sqrt(W_2k1)-sqrt(W_2k2))) x 1480 nm
W_2k1 = 52.5k lbs
W_2k2 = 34.0k lbs
W_aam1 = 49.0k lbs
W_aam2 = 30.5k lbs
R_aam = (((sqrt(49000)-sqrt(30500))/((sqrt(52500)-sqrt(34000)) x 1480 nm = 1546 nm
So the F-35 has a range in excess of 1200 nm of 346 nm. If the advantage of not having to get to altitude with 2 x 2k lbs munitions is taken ito account, it seems that the F-35 has a similar range performance with 4 aams to the Gripen NG with 4 aams and at least 1 external tank. Approx 90 min @ 600 nm. Perhaps even slightly less - but we don't know the excess range of the original 1480 nm number for the F-35 either, so the 1546 nm is probably a minimum.
Edit: Alright, forgot to take reserve fuel when landing into account, but don't care enough to do it over again. If anyone wish to take a shot at adding detail or correct, you're welcome.
Edit 2: Just remembered that the GBU-12 is not a 2 k lbs piece of ordnance! It has to be done all over again.
Also I'm admit I'm not cluey enough, but is the difference in drag between external and internally carried stores factored in or is it a simple equation calculating potential range from weights and fuel loads?
I'm certain you can't have included fuel burn rates either...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
GBU-12 is a 500 lbs LGBNo, it has an explosive weight of 2000lbs...
Also I'm admit I'm not cluey enough, but is the difference in drag between external and internally carried stores factored in or is it a simple equation calculating potential range from weights and fuel loads?
I'm certain you can't have included fuel burn rates either...
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-12.htm
It sort of explains the extra range when compared to the normal spec with 2k lbs weaps.
It is factored in. As the 600 nm for the Gripen is a given, and the F-35 is clean no matter the munition. So no diff in drag on the F-35.
Fuel burn rates should be accounted for - at optimum cruise. Well, if the intricacies of how the engine works are left out... I will of course have to assume that it is at the same cruise speed.
Btw, corrected the prev wiki link - it didn't work.
Last edited:
What, exactly is the difference between Gripen N and Gripen NG ? And Gripen E/F while i'm on it..
I have been able to find out that Gripen NG can be loaded with 8 METEOR + 2 IRIS-T missiles, while it seems so far, that Gripen N will be 6 AMRAAM + 2 sidewinder.
Gripen N would also carry the welterweight Kongsberg (pinguin)antiship missiles instead of the heavyweight Rb 15
Anyone feel free to fill out the blanks..
I have been able to find out that Gripen NG can be loaded with 8 METEOR + 2 IRIS-T missiles, while it seems so far, that Gripen N will be 6 AMRAAM + 2 sidewinder.
Gripen N would also carry the welterweight Kongsberg (pinguin)antiship missiles instead of the heavyweight Rb 15
Anyone feel free to fill out the blanks..
Last edited:
In the quest to find out what Gripen N is, I just stumbled upon a couple of arguments on another site like this:
First off, concidering Norways airforce without a doubt would face Russias navy: "I hope Norway pick a jet that is capable of naval patrol and significant anti-ship warfare.
The JSF's stealthiness is in Air to ground, first strike. And there's not many scenarios when Norway would need this. Especially not in the JSF's operative range.
"There is an argument that says that as Norway is unlikely to go downtown Tehran, why buy JSF ? "
No one even knows if the JSF can launch a anti-ship missile yet and btw it would need to be on external stores, and then you lose all arguments like Stealth and range. If that will even work, Norway would be the first and only JSF customer in that configuration."
Then:
"Gripen is a great little plane and the Norwegians could share maintenace facilities with the RSwAF - they could practically fly their jets straight to Swedish maintenace facilities and pick them up later.."
and :
"Now, if the Nordic countries went Gripen and also bought into the Swedish integrated defence networks - that would make for something quite impressive."
Say no more
First off, concidering Norways airforce without a doubt would face Russias navy: "I hope Norway pick a jet that is capable of naval patrol and significant anti-ship warfare.
The JSF's stealthiness is in Air to ground, first strike. And there's not many scenarios when Norway would need this. Especially not in the JSF's operative range.
"There is an argument that says that as Norway is unlikely to go downtown Tehran, why buy JSF ? "
No one even knows if the JSF can launch a anti-ship missile yet and btw it would need to be on external stores, and then you lose all arguments like Stealth and range. If that will even work, Norway would be the first and only JSF customer in that configuration."
Then:
"Gripen is a great little plane and the Norwegians could share maintenace facilities with the RSwAF - they could practically fly their jets straight to Swedish maintenace facilities and pick them up later.."
and :
"Now, if the Nordic countries went Gripen and also bought into the Swedish integrated defence networks - that would make for something quite impressive."
Say no more
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Which is why JSF used a maritime patrol mission with munitions equivalent to the NSM in their presentation. Plus emphasis on sensors package.
Stealthiness is also for air-air, especially the X-band fighter radars will be affected by the JSF VLO measures.
It is a superior air-to-air fighter - and this is just a "secondary role" !Norway will use the NSM, which is going to be modified for the internal bays of the JSF. That missile is known as the JSM. Read on:
http://project.vbook.no/project.asp?version_id=110&page=1#zp16
P. 16f.
And from Janes:
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY
JULY 20, 2005
Norway pushes naval strike missile for JSF
JORIS JANSSEN LOK JDW Special Correspondent
The Hague
· Kongsberg is developing a multi-purpose stealth cruise missile
· Australia is a possible partner in the scheme
· Norwegian Parliament is to make a decision on a replacement for the F-16 in 2008
Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace and the Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) are positioning the Kongsberg-developed NSM naval strike missile as the starting point for developing a multi-purpose, stealth cruise missile that could be used by Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
Australia is one of the potential partner nations that the Norwegians are looking to for support of such a scheme.
The NSM has been developed, but not yet ordered, as an anti-ship weapon for the new frigates and littoral combat craft of the Royal Norwegian Navy (RNoN).
Kongsberg and the RNoAF are now proposing the development of a multirole variant that would be capable of precision attack against a wide variety of land, littoral and naval targets.
"A study has concluded that it is possible to carry two missiles of this new type - called 'Norseman' or 'Norwegian Multi-Role Missile' - internally in the [F-35A] version of the JSF that is being looked at by Norway," said Lieutenant Colonel Bård Solheim, overall co-ordinator for future fighter capabilities with the RNoAF air operations inspectorate at Rygge Air Station.
"In addition, it will be possible to carry such missiles externally on the JSF, the Eurofighter or a range of other aircraft types," he said in the latest issue of the RNoAF internal publication Luftled.
According to Col Solheim, a 2,000-flying-hour fighter pilot who has
recently supported the NSM flight test programme over the Mediterranean piloting Northrop F-5B chase aircraft, the capability would represent a "unique and cost-saving flexibility".
The NSM is a 3.5 m long, 350 kg stealth missile that is believed to be
capable of a range of around 200 km. The weapon has a 125 kg warhead and a dual-band imaging infra-red seeker for target verification and homing.
Col Solheim said that the RNoAF would be collaborating with Australia in determining the operational requirements and specifications for a
multi-role derivative of NSM. "Like Norway, Australia has sovereign
responsibilities for vast sea and coastal areas and is for that reason
interested in the new multi-role weapon," he claimed.
Col Solheim said that JSF prime contractor Lockheed Martin was also
"strongly in the picture" - despite the fact that the US company itself is marketing a stealth multirole strike missile for use by the JSF: the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM).
Lockheed Martin's interest in seeing an NSM-derivative integrated onto the JSF would be linked to a perceived need to involve Norway (a Level 3 partner in the JSF system development and demonstration programme) and the country's industry, notably Kongsberg, more deeply in the JSF programme.
According to Kongsberg programme manager Jarle Naess, also quoted in Luftled, the cost, operational and technical feasibility study for a
multi-role NSM variant will be completed by 1 September 2006.
Norway's parliament is expected to take a decision on the procurement of an F-16 replacement fighter aircraft for the RNoAF during 2008.
Naess said that "ideally, the integration and production of the Norwegian Multi-Role Missile should be part of the overall package that is to be negotiated with either Lockheed Martin [for the F-35A], Eurofighter or other suppliers".
Depending on a green light from the Norwegian government and parliament, the new NSM variant could be ready around 2015 - in time to meet the planned introduction of an F-16 replacement fighter in the RNoAF.
Naess described the future NSM variant as having the ability to
autonomously fly a covert trajectory and find and identify the target using an on-board library of target characteristics.
Alternatively, the missile may also be manually controlled all the way to the target by the pilot in the launching aircraft, the crew of a P-3C Orion patrol aircraft or special forces on the ground, in order to meet stringent rules of engagement that demand positive target identification via datalink.
* On 29 June, Kongsberg and the Norwegian armed forces conducted another successful live firing of an NSM at the French Mediterranean test range off Toulon. According to the company, the missile (designated test round U7) followed a "sophisticated flight path, featuring a number of sharp turns and height and velocity shifts, before striking a target ship."
"The firing test has demonstrated important new functions, further reducing the project risk," said Tom Gerharsen, president of Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace.
Further, to confirm this is not vapourware:
Lockheed Martin and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace to Jointly Market Joint Strike Missile
ORLANDO, FL, February 1st, 2007 --
Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (Kongsberg) [OSE: KOG] of Norway have entered into a Joint Marketing Agreement to market an air-launched version of the Naval Strike Missile. The missile, to be called the Joint Strike Missile (JSM), is designed to be carried internally and launched externally from the F-35 Lightning II aircraft. The JSM will build upon the Naval Strike Missile.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2007/LockheedMartinKongsbergDefenceAeros.html
Right. But Sweden is not a partner in international ops. Say, Norway does want to go downtown Tehran - does Norway then get to take the Swedish personnel with them? This would not be a proposal for a sovereign capability!
NATO already has an integrated network. Why dump that and suddenly integrate with Sweden??? Particularly when Norway will have to work with UK/Holland/Germany for its defence !!! Argument only works on omission - or wishful thinking. Perhaps the Swedes should plug into NATOs.and :
"Now, if the Nordic countries went Gripen and also bought into the Swedish integrated defence networks - that would make for something quite impressive."
Say no more
Key words: ACCS (NADGE replacement), CAOC Finderup.
Doesn't make any sense.
Last edited:
"A few years ago, SWAF made an interesting comparison among JAS-39A, F-16C/D Block40/42, F/A-18C/D, and M2000-5:
.......
# Gripen's frontal RCS: about 1/5 of F/A-18C/D's, 1/3 of F-16C/D Block40/42's, and 1/2 of Mirage-2000-5's.
# Detective range of PS-05A radar (JAS-39): a little shorter than AN/APG-65/73 (F/A-18C/D), but 20% longer than RDY (M2000-5), and 40% longer than the AN/APG-68 for F-16C/D Block40/42.
# While combating with the basic type of MIG-29 (MIG-29G??) in BVR engagement:
* JAS-39A: the effective range for Gripen to detect MIG-29 is 60 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen.
* M2000-5: the effective range for Mirage to detect MIG-29 is 32 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Mirage.
* F/A-18C/D: the effective range for Hornet to detect MIG-29 is 25 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Hornet.
* F-16C/D: the effective range for Falcon to detect MIG-29 is 5 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Falcon.
# Maintenance of GRIPEN:
* The MTBF for JAS-39A is 7.6 flight hours, and the SAAB declared that the MTBF for the USAF?s frontline fighters (except F/A-22 perhaps) is no more than 4.1 flight hours.
* The man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour: 12 man-hours initially, than reduced to 10 man-hours (F/A-18 E/F: 15 man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour).
* The charge for each flight-hour: 2,500 USD initially, than reduced to 2,000 USD."
Is there any comparison made between F35 export vs MIG 29 ?
btw i cant find a comparison between gripen N vs gripen NG, i just keep ending up in something else! so..anyone out there know gripen N vs gripen NG ?
.......
# Gripen's frontal RCS: about 1/5 of F/A-18C/D's, 1/3 of F-16C/D Block40/42's, and 1/2 of Mirage-2000-5's.
# Detective range of PS-05A radar (JAS-39): a little shorter than AN/APG-65/73 (F/A-18C/D), but 20% longer than RDY (M2000-5), and 40% longer than the AN/APG-68 for F-16C/D Block40/42.
# While combating with the basic type of MIG-29 (MIG-29G??) in BVR engagement:
* JAS-39A: the effective range for Gripen to detect MIG-29 is 60 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen.
* M2000-5: the effective range for Mirage to detect MIG-29 is 32 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Mirage.
* F/A-18C/D: the effective range for Hornet to detect MIG-29 is 25 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Hornet.
* F-16C/D: the effective range for Falcon to detect MIG-29 is 5 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Falcon.
# Maintenance of GRIPEN:
* The MTBF for JAS-39A is 7.6 flight hours, and the SAAB declared that the MTBF for the USAF?s frontline fighters (except F/A-22 perhaps) is no more than 4.1 flight hours.
* The man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour: 12 man-hours initially, than reduced to 10 man-hours (F/A-18 E/F: 15 man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour).
* The charge for each flight-hour: 2,500 USD initially, than reduced to 2,000 USD."
Is there any comparison made between F35 export vs MIG 29 ?
btw i cant find a comparison between gripen N vs gripen NG, i just keep ending up in something else! so..anyone out there know gripen N vs gripen NG ?
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
So MiG-29 is the benchmark for the 2030+ "Red Air"?
Thought it was the PAK-FA...
Is the USAF inventory comparable with the JAS-39s of Sweden? Are the JAS-39A brand new when this analysis was made, while the USAF fleet numbers are derived from jets with a higher average age! Are the USAF jets worked harder with more flight hrs on their air frames?
Quite frankly, you cannot compare numbers for a select, brand new jet to the average performance of an entire fleet. IF you wish to compare across the board, include the MTBF of the JAS-37 to these numbers. And normalise for usage. Then it is real.
F-18 is a twin engined jet - of course it requires more maintenance hrs. What did you expect?!
This is too selective to be of any use.
Source for this?
Detection range? Frontal RCS of JSF is probably at least 20 times smaller than Gripens. The AN/APG-81 also has an aperture diameter that is 100-200 mm larger than Gripens PS-05/A.
Last edited:
If I have understand it correctly, "Gripen N" is a "Gripen NG" with adaption to a Kongsberg-developed NSM naval strike missile...mainly.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
N/DK/NG...E/F/Demo?
The NG abbrevation is a general term applied loosely.
Do we know what the Norwegians or Danes order from Saab if they go with gripen? No. So the N/DK spec is unknown.
E/F seems to be an avionics upgrade for SWAF. Perhaps plus some more from a hypothetical N/DK programme.
Demo is the jet that will be used as a testbed for N/DK/NG/E/F technologies.
So it is very intangible.
The NG abbrevation is a general term applied loosely.
Do we know what the Norwegians or Danes order from Saab if they go with gripen? No. So the N/DK spec is unknown.
E/F seems to be an avionics upgrade for SWAF. Perhaps plus some more from a hypothetical N/DK programme.
Demo is the jet that will be used as a testbed for N/DK/NG/E/F technologies.
So it is very intangible.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Plus the increased internal fuel fraction?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
This definitely makes sense.
- Status