Gripen - Red Flag
- Thread starter chrishorne
- Start date
- Status
Grand Danois
Entertainer
That is acknowledged. Depending on what you need (or decide upon as needed) and how your IADS is structured, Gripen is a cost effective jet.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.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I never said they weren't significant and have previously argued similarly in relation to the LO measures on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
But we seem to have a Gripen afficionado on our hands here who seems to need a few realities pointed out when he wants to compare aircraft of different classes entirely...
No, but you did ask what was so superior about the F-35 and the VLO is one of the biggest advantages it has...
What has bombing Iraq to do with anything? I'm pretty sure it WILL do overseas missions or Sweden wouldn't be bothering to make it's C/D model Gripen's NATO compliant.
On top of which, South Africa I'm fairly certain is noth based in Europe, nor is Thailand and neither have ever bombed Iraq, but they will be flying Gripen and WILL need plenty of range from their aircraft, or plenty of refuelling assets (which neither have) or must be prepared to base it's aircraft close to where they intend to operate said Gripen...
More fuel has other advantages however than mere range, one I have already alluded to, being the increased use of the after-burner, that the greater fuel fraction allows, but also greater loiter time, with which to hit "fleeting" targets with your PGM's...
I've never read a confirmed source on this, but in any case the range at which it can do this MUST be absolutely minimal. So much so in my opinion, that at best it's useful for marketing purposes and the operational benefit is negligible. I have certainly not seen any announcements from any of the customers of the Gripen, that say that the aircraft's ability to supercruise is a significant factor in it's selection...
"Supercruising" doesn't burn as much fuel as using reheat, but it still provides increased fuel burn over efficient sub-sonic cruising that is the main "speed" tactical fighters (even F-22) fly at.
So which radar HAVE they chosen? Which engine have they chosen? I believe they have chosen F-414, but I'm not absolutely certain. The EJ-200 has also been discussed, as has an LO engine nozzle, ala F-35 and all manner of other improvements which so far are nothing more than "discussions". So far a $90m contract has been signed to start developing this model I believe and that's it. $90m isn't going to buy you too many upgrades on a modern combat aircraft I'm afraid and without an order first to help fund it, I personally doubt you'll ever see the Gripen NG...
okay you´re indeed right about things and i´m wrong. yes.
i´m pretty sure you´ll see NG, the demo flight will be in mars. a couple of weeks from now. so i think they will promote it aggresively.
angående gripen supercruise
"There was one interesting problem," Colonel Eldh concludes with a smile. Gripen is supersonic at all altitudes and can cruise supersonically with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two Sidewinder missles without the need to engage the afterburner. "In the early days of operations, we found some pilots were inadvertantly flying supersonic over populated areas. The problem was one of habit, as these pilots had their throttle settings as high as on the older generation fighters that the Gripen replaced. it is fair to say that there were a few startled people on the ground, as their day-to-day work, or perhaps sleep, was disturbed by unexpected sonic booms! It was, of course, a simple task to solve the problem - the throttles were re-set and everyone was happy."
i´m quite sure they went for F-414, and it will give 22000 yes, but they talked about to increase the "nm" like they did with the previous engine.. but true ím not 100 per cent sure here..
i´m pretty sure you´ll see NG, the demo flight will be in mars. a couple of weeks from now. so i think they will promote it aggresively.
angående gripen supercruise
"There was one interesting problem," Colonel Eldh concludes with a smile. Gripen is supersonic at all altitudes and can cruise supersonically with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two Sidewinder missles without the need to engage the afterburner. "In the early days of operations, we found some pilots were inadvertantly flying supersonic over populated areas. The problem was one of habit, as these pilots had their throttle settings as high as on the older generation fighters that the Gripen replaced. it is fair to say that there were a few startled people on the ground, as their day-to-day work, or perhaps sleep, was disturbed by unexpected sonic booms! It was, of course, a simple task to solve the problem - the throttles were re-set and everyone was happy."
i´m quite sure they went for F-414, and it will give 22000 yes, but they talked about to increase the "nm" like they did with the previous engine.. but true ím not 100 per cent sure here..
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Gripen:
Length: 14.8m.
Wing span: 8.4m.
Height (overall): 4.5m
Maximum takeoff weight: 14 tonnes.
Thrust: 18,000lbs. (Max - reheat).
Courtesy: http://www.gripen.com/en/GripenFighter/TechnicalSummary.htm
F-16:
Length: 14.8m.
Wingspan: 9.8m.
Height (overall): 4.8m.
Maximum take off weight: 16.85 tonnes.
Thrust: 27,000lbs.
Courtesy of: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=103
Hardly "1/3rd" the size of an F-16...
true, sorry. 22 per cent less weight, i think it was. but now im not sure about anything
anyway i´m not a PRO-gripen here, actually F-22 raptor is my fav. and i like EF alot, anyway all of them are great aircrafts, and i´m just impressed of the engineers, why i´m so impressed of gripen is mostly because of that simple reason, sweden have a population of 9 mill. like nyc, and got the technology to build a great 4+ generation A/C alone..
anyway i´m not a PRO-gripen here, actually F-22 raptor is my fav. and i like EF alot, anyway all of them are great aircrafts, and i´m just impressed of the engineers, why i´m so impressed of gripen is mostly because of that simple reason, sweden have a population of 9 mill. like nyc, and got the technology to build a great 4+ generation A/C alone..
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Agreed. I've never said it's not a decent air combat aircraft, but it has inherent limitations in payload and range capabilities, which are always important for a combat aircraft no matter which country operates them.
This is reflected with upgrades almost specifically targetted at addressing them in the NG model...
As to the supercruising issue, well I've said my piece. Personally in an aircraft with external stores carriage and limited range even on typical sub-sonic cruise profiles, I believe it's more a useful marketing claim than a useful operational capability. One can even take this further if one wishes to start debating what the term "supercruise" even means.
I've seen some commentators call transonic speeds "supercruising" and on the face of it it's fair enough, as the transonic zone exceeds somewhat past mach 1 as I understand these things...
true, very true,
only reason i ad it, was because it didn´t come from sweden, so of that reason i see it more reliable..
and yes i know you didn´t say that, and it was me who started the conversation, i did it because i´ve hard to believe that everything except F-35 and american technology are inferior to others. all aircraft have strength and weaknesses, except F-22 raptor
and of that simple reason, we can only assume how good F-35 will be.. sure all common sense tells us it will be a supurb aircraft, but we´ve been suprised before.
only reason i ad it, was because it didn´t come from sweden, so of that reason i see it more reliable..
and yes i know you didn´t say that, and it was me who started the conversation, i did it because i´ve hard to believe that everything except F-35 and american technology are inferior to others. all aircraft have strength and weaknesses, except F-22 raptor
and of that simple reason, we can only assume how good F-35 will be.. sure all common sense tells us it will be a supurb aircraft, but we´ve been suprised before.
Wait a sec.
Sound strange to me. Are you sure. According http://www.gripen.com/en/index.htm will "roll out" happen 23:rd of April :O2
I think so too
Can here be some confusion regarding diffrent concept around "versions" of "Gripen"?
I´m not sure but i think:
"Gripen N " will be an range extended version of "Gripen E/F" - with additional hardpoints.
"Gripen NG" is a temporary "Sale name". NG=means "Next generation" if i not have miss understand it.
Dates?
Hmmm, that might depends on sale to Norway and Denmark behaps.
I´m not sure but i think:
"Gripen N " will be an range extended version of "Gripen E/F" - with additional hardpoints.
"Gripen NG" is a temporary "Sale name". NG=means "Next generation" if i not have miss understand it.
Dates?
Hmmm, that might depends on sale to Norway and Denmark behaps.
Well thats depends on - i think
I imagine diffrent posibilities:
If denmark and Norway go ahead with "Gripen DK" (Gripen Denmark) resp. "Gripen N" (Gripen Norway) - which mainly are the same plane with small diffrences (adaption to specific weapon system), then will sweden likly following.
But let say, denmark & norway stay out, than swedish defence mayby think:
If you take a "Gripen C/D" - change engine and radar (AESA) etc - viola a "gripen E/F"
Just a speculation
I imagine diffrent posibilities:
If denmark and Norway go ahead with "Gripen DK" (Gripen Denmark) resp. "Gripen N" (Gripen Norway) - which mainly are the same plane with small diffrences (adaption to specific weapon system), then will sweden likly following.
But let say, denmark & norway stay out, than swedish defence mayby think:
If you take a "Gripen C/D" - change engine and radar (AESA) etc - viola a "gripen E/F"
Just a speculation
THS, can you possibly expand on this? I know of at least one aircraft (I was personally involved with its flight testing) where flying with an external fuel tank on its belly station had almost no effect on the high subsonic cruise performance of the aircraft. Of course, that is not the norm and usually there is a drag penalty, but only "half the range increase" of internal fuel? You would have the added mass regardless of whether you were carrying the extra fuel internally or externally, so I can only assume you are referring to the effect of the additional drag of the tanks. What you state here just doesn't seem right - at least I didn't see that kind of number on any of the fighter aircraft / fuel tank combinations I have worked with. I also can't recall seeing a number like that in any of the aircraft design texts or databases that I normally use. Maybe you have a reference for this claim?
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
An example is the way the RAAF uses external fuel in when moveing its F-111's arround. Ther're capable of carrieing 4x external tanks, however they only ever transit with 2 becasue the extra drag outweighed the extra fuel carried. The only way to make it viable was to drop the tanks when they were dry, which is not very cost effective.
OK, but the aircraft I have worked with don't show nearly the same penalties for extra tanks. To do the internal/external comparison, you obviously need to compare the performance of the aircraft with the external tanks after the fuel have been drained from the tanks, to the performance of the same aircraft without the external tanks, so you only take into account the drag and not the mass of the fuel (which would have been there anyway if the extra fuel was carried internally). In most cases, especially when the tanks are properly designed and placed on the aircraft in a way that minimize interference drag, the penalty will be small - at least a lot smaller than what THS alluded to. His numbers can definately not be used as a "standard".
Also, you need to be careful with your comparison above - that third and fourth tank also add a lot of mass (initially, while they are full) to an aircraft which is already very heavy. The penalty you see is not purely from the drag of the tanks.
What is usually the case (again based on those aircraft I am familiar with) is that you add the external tanks, the aircraft performs poorly for the first part of the flight due to the mass, but once the tanks are empty performance is very close again to performance without the tanks. Now, if you added that extra fuel internally, you would have had the same poor performance due to the extra mass.
SlyDog: We expect to fly the F-16 at least untill 2015 - problem is that there will probably be a delay, as there always is. The merlin should have been fully operational quite some time ago.
The main problem for the Gripen is that in the 40 odd year life span of the F-16 the development took it to operational about 10 years ago - so the basic decision is shall we go for the tried and tested that would work in the old scenario - or should we go for a plane better suited to the present scenario.
It might be unfair to the Gripen, but that is what is going to happen: In 2025-30 it will be outdated - not the F-35.
This touches on another big problem for small airforces: They do not have experience in introducing new types! That is something we feel keenly in Denmark at the present with the Merlin - that we moved the helicopters to another base did not help retension of technical personel.
The main problem for the Gripen is that in the 40 odd year life span of the F-16 the development took it to operational about 10 years ago - so the basic decision is shall we go for the tried and tested that would work in the old scenario - or should we go for a plane better suited to the present scenario.
It might be unfair to the Gripen, but that is what is going to happen: In 2025-30 it will be outdated - not the F-35.
This touches on another big problem for small airforces: They do not have experience in introducing new types! That is something we feel keenly in Denmark at the present with the Merlin - that we moved the helicopters to another base did not help retension of technical personel.
- Status