Gripen - Red Flag

[Dr Freud]

Quote:
The core technology in a fighter aircraft is the engine: You have many bad aircraft with good engines, but very few good aircraft with bad engines.

Can you please elaborate? examples etc.
first plane that comes to my mind is the F14A, wich was considered the best interceptor in the world, despite being underpowered to the point where the pilot had to 'baby' the aircraft from time to time.

But please refrain any swedish bias, or we will have to open a new thread:
Why Ths (or danes) can't get over it.

 

[merocaine]

The F-15 and F-16 is the "hi-lo" pair of fighters, where the F-16 is very capable of handling most situations, but in case the enemy concentrates force a backup is needed, and that is where the F-15 comes in. In itself the F-15 is to expensive to be bought in numbers to cover a given area.

F-22 and F-35 is an extension of that philosophy; but with a twist. The engine allows supercruise, which means the F-22 can act as a tactical reserve IN THE AIR. The differentation of military aircraft is no so much a destinction in role (i.e. fighter, bomber, recce) - that adaption kan be performed with pods and electronics; but a destinction in size and power: The F-35 will be as good as the F-22, but not to the same extend - if you get my drift.

Just so I understand you correctly, your saying that the F-15/16 hi low mix will be replaced by the F-35, and the F-22 will be a bonus not an essential component?
NATO's success is undoubted, its just that it seems to have lost its main reason for existance. If the future is expeditionary warfare, then NATO is just to unwieldy and political. I'm sure it will limp on, but at the moment Americas greatest military threat lies on the otherside of the planet.
Formed to Keep the americans in, the germans down, and the russians out, what is its use now? America is capable of forming adhoc coalitions when it needs them. The threats that have sustained Nato are gone, look at the difficulties it is encountering in Afganistan, common to all coalitions of course,
but the difference is the problem some countries have in justifing there involvement to there people. It seems to me that they are afraid that signicant loses would cause them to begin to agitate against Nato membership(a strong sentiment in germany), which is more important it seems to some Europeans than Americans.
Both the last two american defence sectaries have displayed there impatience with Nato, will the next be any different?

 

[zeven]

Merocaine:
Any fighter is designed around a scenario - and Gripen is designed around a very specific and somewhat unique scenario: Defence of Sweden.

The F-15 and F-16 is the "hi-lo" pair of fighters, where the F-16 is very capable of handling most situations, but in case the enemy concentrates force a backup is needed, and that is where the F-15 comes in. In itself the F-15 is to expensive to be bought in numbers to cover a given area.

F-22 and F-35 is an extension of that philosophy; but with a twist. The engine allows supercruise, which means the F-22 can act as a tactical reserve IN THE AIR. The differentation of military aircraft is no so much a destinction in role (i.e. fighter, bomber, recce) - that adaption kan be performed with pods and electronics; but a destinction in size and power: The F-35 will be as good as the F-22, but not to the same extend - if you get my drift.

As to age of aircraft: It is not so much physical age, as age of the concept. That is mitigated by adaptability. The Gripen is designed around such a narrow scenario, that adaptability is limited.
The F-16 has been around for since IIRC 1975 and will have served for 40 years as a first line aircraft, when replaced - indeed they are starting to wear out physically. They have been updated thoroughly at least twice.
When they were bought they were competing with SAAB Viggen and Mirage F1 both having been retired for quite some years.
This is partly due to the longer time taken to develop European aircraft, which leaves less time as a first line aircraft.
Secondly - and perhaps more importantly: The core technology in a fighter aircraft is the engine: You have many bad aircraft with good engines, but very few good aircraft with bad engines.

As to the future of Nato, I beg to differ. It continues to provide security for its members - large and small - at a very low price.

According to, JSF homepage, F-35 is unable to supercruise,
and the A/C abiltity in air 2 air combat is only secondary,

only reason they retired Viggen was, no reason to keep it going, because of Gripen, and you say the development takes longer for europe?? haha, look here, F-22 was supposed to be operational 96 one (projektplan 9 years) it toke them 20 years.. Gripen didn´t exeed the plan at all.

 

[zeven]

According to, JSF homepage, F-35 is unable to supercruise,
and the A/C abiltity in air 2 air combat is only secondary,

only reason they retired Viggen was, no reason to keep it going, because of Gripen, and you say the development takes longer for europe?? haha, look here, F-22 was supposed to be operational 96 one (projektplan 9 years) it toke them 20 years.. Gripen didn´t exeed the plan at all.

Another thing that suprise me.

what exactly make F-35 so superior Gripen? steatlh?? weapons? F-35 is a lightweight, only four pylons internely.

the avionics aint so superior after what i´ve read, only the satellite comm,system, but i doubt more countries than Usa, have access to it.. the differnce is, usa and europe choosed to differnet ways europe with their datalinks looking for information supiority, and the amerikans looking for steatlhsupiority, either way you go, i´ll say the the 4+ generations aricraft are quite remakable in certain things,

 

[Aussie Digger]

Another thing that suprise me.

what exactly make F-35 so superior Gripen? steatlh?? weapons? F-35 is a lightweight, only four pylons internely.

the avionics aint so superior after what i´ve read, only the satellite comm,system, but i doubt more countries than Usa, have access to it.. the differnce is, usa and europe choosed to differnet ways europe with their datalinks looking for information supiority, and the amerikans looking for steatlhsupiority, either way you go, i´ll say the the 4+ generations aricraft are quite remakable in certain things,

The F-35 mounts 2x pylons internally and 2x rails internally. It also mounts 6x external pylons if necessary.

Let me ask you a few questions about Gripen as it stands, which should address your questions...

How many internal rails and pylons does the Gripen mount?

What is the effect of carrying externally mounted weapons with respect to drag, increased RCS, aircraft acceleration, maneuverability and overall performance?

Does Gripen operate an AESA radar system?

Does Gripen mount an internal EO/IR air to ground targetting system, which is an advancement based on the current Sniper XR pod?

Does Gripen carry 18489lbs of fuel, internally?

Does Gripen operate VLO level RCS and IR reduction measures?

Does Gripen operate a passive IR targetting / defensive system that is mounted in 6 individual arrays, 360 degrees around the airframe?

Does Gripen boast 28000lbs of thrust + in "dry thrust" settings?

Can the Gripen carry a 5895kg payload in addition to 18489lbs of internal fuel?

If you can understand the significance of some of these things, you'll understand why the F-35 is a more capable aircraft...

 

[zeven]

If we´re talking jas NG here.

first question, very funny you know the answer, anyway. jas will´ve 10 pylons

because of the small frame, the RCS are quite impressive of Gripen, ref: redFlag Sardina. just to mention one.

yes JAS NG will operate AESA system.
i´m not sure, but some says the irsystem will be integraded yes.

talking about the fuel, it will increase with 48 per cent.

jas NG will prbably have something inbetween, 220000 and up to 26000, that vs. the weight will give a better T/W than F-35

jas can carry 6000kg paylaod. (NG version)
and almoust 4000L fuel

but almoust all the avionics will be upgraded, and jas have changed partners from BEA til major usa aerospace companies, and the swedes technology knowledge shouldn´t be underastemated.

but yes i know F-35 will be superior, but some ppl says that the europeen options doesn´t stand a chanse.

second, the A/C are developed for different senarios as well. so in genral if you look what the are made to do, the different aint so huge, that some of you make an impression of.

 

[Grand Danois]

Btw, wrt IRST for the Gripen. The Swedes have experimented with IR-OTIS since 1990. I take this system is an Euro MOTS. Is this the IRST the Swedes envisage to use on the Gripen NG or do they have another MOTS IRST in mind?

I can find precious little info on the sources for this system.

 

[Ths]

Dr Freud:
The F-14A was build to intercept Russian bombers before they could launch their missiles. It was underpower - but worse the engine was a clonker.
I for one have always thought the engine kept the Tomcat from reaching its full potential - and I believe the 14D was to mount the F-100 (or was it the F-110).

To fullfill its mission the designers had to use every trick in the book, advanced materials (at the time), Swingwing AND tripple slotted flaps.
If you ask the maintainence crews - it was NOT a great aeroplane. It did not achieve any exports (except to Iran - some view that as a hostile move towards Iran in itself; but let that rest).

If You take the Merlin engine - which is surely one of the great engines of all times - powered the major in-line engine fighters of WW2. Many good planes and then the Defiant - a dog by any name.

I think it was the J52 that powered the Super Sabre - anyway the same engine went into the F-8 Corsair, that achieved Mach 2 in level flight. The F-100 was insignificant as an interceptor; but a good fighter-bomber due to its ability to carry a great load a long way.

The J-79 powered The F-4, F-104 and lots of others. When the British replaced the J-79 with an Avon dirivative topspeed, max altitude and so on plummeted. Oh did I forget to mention added a maintainence nightmare.

The F-100 engine has more or less set the standard.

To sum up: You can relatively easy wrap aluminium foil around a good engine and achieve good results, but to make a bad engine fly calls for dire national emergency and every aerodynamic trick - and still it will only be second best.
The Tomcat has never had to face real opposition - russian bombers out of Murmansk are poor dogfighters (so are Suhkois flown by Libyans) - the achievement was to fly without too many parts falling off:
Karen Hultgren showed what happened when flown by any but the best. The F-15 has landed after midair collisions - not only without flaps, but witout half a wing.

 

[zeven]

Yes, thats right,
we´re talking about the IR-OTIS, system. i´m 99 per cent sure of it, and last thing i heard it will be integraded in NG, because everything has gone as planed.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

If we´re talking jas NG here.

first question, very funny you know the answer, anyway. jas will´ve 10 pylons

But what are they cleared to carry and how many are internal?

because of the small frame, the RCS are quite impressive of Gripen, ref: redFlag Sardina. just to mention one.

Are you sujesting a small airframe has an RCS anywere near VLO level?

yes JAS NG will operate AESA system.
i´m not sure, but some says the irsystem will be integraded yes.

it will be a first gen system with only conventional radar functions, therefore it will be significantly less capable than the AN/APG 81.

EOTS isnt just an IRST, it is also EO strike targeting system. Additionally the DAS will provide 360 degree Ir coverage. i doubt grippen NG will have a similar system.

talking about the fuel, it will increase with 48 per cent.

How many Lb's and what kind of combat radii does that provide? Less than F-35A i would bet.

jas NG will prbably have something inbetween, 220000 and up to 26000, that vs. the weight will give a better T/W than F-35

What about thrust vs drag with external weapons and fuel? Anyway T2W has a minimal effect on combat capability when compared to VLO.

but almoust all the avionics will be upgraded, and jas have changed partners from BEA til major usa aerospace companies, and the swedes technology knowledge shouldn´t be underastemated.

but yes i know F-35 will be superior, but some ppl says that the europeen options doesn´t stand a chanse.

Wether it will be purchased has alot more to do with the individual nations requirements than which one is 'better'. Cost and plitical/logistical constraints usually have just as much (if not more) influence as performance in determaning sales.

second, the A/C are developed for different senarios as well. so in genral if you look what the are made to do, the different aint so huge, that some of you make an impression of.

They are both multirole "light" platforms so their design objectives are similar. As for the difference in capability, VLO+AN/APG 81 = dead Grippen, as simple as that.

 

[swerve]

...
Does Gripen carry 18489lbs of fuel, internally?
...
Does Gripen boast 28000lbs of thrust + in "dry thrust" settings?

Can the Gripen carry a 5895kg payload in addition to 18489lbs of internal fuel?

If you can understand the significance of some of these things, you'll understand why the F-35 is a more capable aircraft...

These should all be considered relative to the size & weight of the aircraft, or one would expect better dynamic performance from a B-52 than an F-35.

 

[Ths]

External carrige is less and less important as PGM flows into the inventories: Why scare people with a lot of near misses when you can kill them with a direct hit?

The importance of internal fuel is that externally carried fuel only give you half the range increase a similar amount carried internally does.


What You should consider is that ranges have grown for almost all Nato countries: A fighter has to cover more territory further away (the downside of strategic depth). The F-35 is a good plane on its own; but really comes into its right in cooperation with the F-22.

The electronics are not that important, as they can - to a large extend be retrofitted.

The contention that Nato is a has been, is utterly false.
Russia - at the moment - is not a threat; but it needs Nato to keep it like that.

 

[Aussie Digger]

If we´re talking jas NG here.

first question, very funny you know the answer, anyway. jas will´ve 10 pylons.

Excellent. Bring on the drag...

because of the small frame, the RCS are quite impressive of Gripen, ref: redFlag Sardina. just to mention one.

I'm sure... It ain't much smaller than the F-16 and I don't hear many praising the RCS of the F-16...

yes JAS NG will operate AESA system.
i´m not sure, but some says the irsystem will be integraded yes.

Perhaps. Maybe. One day. If someone actually buys it.

talking about the fuel, it will increase with 48 per cent.

Only through the use of conformal fuel tanks. Hello RCS and drag increase. Hello decreased agility and performance.

jas NG will prbably have something inbetween, 220000 and up to 26000, that vs. the weight will give a better T/W than F-35

Not if they choose the F-414 for the engine upgrade, which I believe they have. The same F-414 which can only make 22000lbs on a test bench, not in an operational aircraft... That's 22000lbs in reheat as well.

Measure the F-135 in 43,000lbs of reheat and see how your T/W measures up...

jas can carry 6000kg paylaod. (NG version)
and almoust 4000L fuel

Again, 95% of that is external...

but almoust all the avionics will be upgraded, and jas have changed partners from BEA til major usa aerospace companies, and the swedes technology knowledge shouldn´t be underastemated.

I don't, but then I'm not the one who stated " the avionics aint so superior after what i´ve read". You do realise you are comparing an aircraft developed in the 80's with an aircraft being developed NOW?

but yes i know F-35 will be superior, but some ppl says that the europeen options doesn´t stand a chanse.

Depends what this "chance" is. If you are talking combat between the 2, then I'd agree. None of the European "delta canard" fighters stack up all that brilliantly against the F-35 in my opinion.

If you are talking prospective sales, I'd say once again the European fighters don't stand that much of a chance either... Gripen will be lucky to reach 300 aircraft sales in total. Rafale will be the same.

second, the A/C are developed for different senarios as well. so in genral if you look what the are made to do, the different aint so huge, that some of you make an impression of.

I'll rather take what Saab and Lockheed Martin state their respective fighters are designed to do. Under those circumstances I agree the difference ain't huge.

When you look at that compare it with the capability that they will deliver, then the difference IS huge.

 

[zeven]

okay, i never said the RCS can be comparebly to VLO did i??
and combat range and fuel, aint so important here because gripen (with one P ) aint gonna bomb iraq. or do overseas missions.

the trust vs drag, is very very good, gripen wasn´t supposed to have the supercruise ability, but it can, with 4arm 2 SDs and one external fueltank at all altidudes.

and gripen with awac:s and TIDLS have an impressive informations awareness of the battlefields. and the swedes aint stupid, if they want to continue to promote gripen, they can´t use second hand comm/radar systems, or du you say that the swedes and their partners are years behind the americans? btw Northrop Grumman Corporation offerd the easa system to mention one. to saab, and saab didn´t accept it, so it appears they have something equal..

btw we will never know before the meet eathother in exercises, do we?? and i never said gripen is superior to F-35 either, but i think the europeens deserves more credit then you guys give them. or they wouldn´t sell.

 

[Grand Danois]

I'm sure... It ain't much smaller than the F-16 and I don't hear many praising the RCS of the F-16...

The RCS measures on the Gripen (/Gripen NG) and the Eurofighter are tactically significant, as they translate to improved survivability.

The difference between above and the VLO of the F-35 is that the reduction to -20/-30 dB enables an entirely different and superior CONOPS, which you cannot realize with the "4th gen" jets, however much "5th gen" electronics you put into them.

The range/fuel load and internalization of mission systems and weapons on the F-35 is also a huge advantage, beyond the stealth aspects, not to be dismissed. The loadout configurations are more "operational."

 

[Aussie Digger]

These should all be considered relative to the size & weight of the aircraft, or one would expect better dynamic performance from a B-52 than an F-35.

Indeed. However the greater the fuel fraction, the longer one can use one's afterburner for...

I admit that L-M states that "supercruise" is not a design requirement for the F-35, however it's thrust and apparent aerodynamics (that I've only seen measured in "2D" via publicly available sources, regrettably) and the anecdotal comments made by the test pilots to date (high subsonic speeds achieved on only 40% setting of available dry thrust in the "heavy" AA-1 variant) seem to indicate that the F-35 mayl indeed possess a supercruise capability, if perhaps not equal to the F-22's, still at least useful.

Whether it can manage it in operational configurations though, will be an issue, as it is for many aircraft. It should be well known that MANY fighter aircraft are capable of achieving "supercruise" in "clean" configuration, but what's the point of mentioning that?

The English Electric Lightning could supercruise in the 1950's...

 

[SlyDog]

Ths: I think F-16 become "In operational service" 1978 or 1979. I guess its "service time" will be at least 45 years - and not to unlikely 50. "Draken" was in active service for 45 years. Not bad. "Viggen" was somewhat short-lived - *only* 34 years, partly depending on high maintain cost. An important factor since sweden had a quite big airfleet during that time - but also depending on that fact that both "draken" and "F-16" was more "ahead of its time" when they became introduced.

My guess is that "gripen" will have a service time for around 40 years

 

[swerve]

...
Only through the use of conformal fuel tanks. Hello RCS and drag increase. Hello decreased agility and performance. ....

The extra fuel figures are internal, without CFTs. Though he's wrong on the 48% more fuel - Saab say 40% increase in internal. CFTs are only an option if a customer pays for development, AFAIK, & I don't think they're mentioned anywhere on the Gripen website.

...
Again, 95% of that is external...
....

See above. The weapons load, yes, all external. But not 95% of the total load, or anywhere near.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I find it irritating when people who should know better post stuff like that.

 

[zeven]

true like i said previous, F-35 are superior never said,
yes its true, F-35 is a 5th generation.

but alot of the frame comes form F-22 who is developed in the 80s, the f-22 was supposed to be operational 96..

anyway. F-35 is superior yes, but as a point defence fighter the EF/gripen aint to far behind..

you need to compare A/C vs what they are desgined to do. not only by stats.. that at least my opnion.. "chance" sorry for the spelling.

 

[rattmuff]

okay, i never said the RCS can be comparebly to VLO did i??
and combat range and fuel, aint so important here because gripen (with one P ) aint gonna bomb iraq. or do overseas missions.

Hi. Just want to inform that it will do overseas mission and does so every year in these "war games". If Sweden's supreme commander gets his way some Gripens will probably bomb something foreign somewhere.

the trust vs drag, is very very good, gripen wasn´t supposed to have the supercruise ability, but it can, with 4arm 2 SDs and one external fueltank at all altidudes.

Thrust vs. drag?
Supercruise?! ... What do you smoke?