Gripen - Red Flag

[Dr Freud]

In the defence of a country the size of Denmark, i think Gripen has more then adequate range and endurance.
But in an international commitment.
for example loitering around above the hills in Afganistan, in case a suspect looking afgan take a walk.
it just wasn't built for that purpose, endurance rules in such a scenario.
I would go so far as to say a Predator is the best of the lot.

 

[zeven]

ehm can´t understand why ppl still argue about the fact, that F-35 will not be able to supercruise, LM have done that clear, many times.

F-22 is able to supercruise in mach 1.5 very impressive.

UK test pilots have informed that Gripen is able to supercruise with 2arm, 2sidewinders and one external tank, at all altitudes

but i really can´t see the need for F-35 to supuercruise.. its a bomb fighter with secondary air to air abilities, (can´t understand why ppl still argue about that too) both LM, and USAF are saying that, even says so on LM homepage,

why do you think usaf released the top secret RCS information about F-22?? because they wanted more F-22 and less F-35 because of that simple reason, F-35 is a bombfighter.

and Gripen NGs range and fuelcapacitity, meets Denmarks and Norways requirements, so why is this still on topic???

 

[zeven]

the question should be:

which aircraft suits best for each country?? both aircraft meed all the requirements, no one can argue about that..

in this case i would choose a lowcost/low turnaround /maintaince, very impressive mtow, everyday before a slow heavy highcost F-35 remember, you miltiary budget are limited, and not as big as other countries like usa, uk, isreal, turkey. and so on..

can´t understand why ppl dont see the lifecycle cost, inportant, is your taxmoney who pays for it and 95% the plane is used over denmark and not on the international arena..

 

[Aussie Digger]

ehm can´t understand why ppl still argue about the fact, that F-35 will not be able to supercruise, LM have done that clear, many times.

F-22 is able to supercruise in mach 1.5 very impressive.

UK test pilots have informed that Gripen is able to supercruise with 2arm, 2sidewinders and one external tank, at all altitudes

but i really can´t see the need for F-35 to supuercruise.. its a bomb fighter with secondary air to air abilities, (can´t understand why ppl still argue about that too) both LM, and USAF are saying that, even says so on LM homepage,

why do you think usaf released the top secret RCS information about F-22?? because they wanted more F-22 and less F-35 because of that simple reason, F-35 is a bombfighter.

and Gripen NGs range and fuelcapacitity, meets Denmarks and Norways requirements, so why is this still on topic???

Because you don't really understand much about aircraft.

The F-35 possesses greater thrust, a clean airframe even in operational configuration and a very sleek aerodynamic shape. It possesses an enormous amount of 'dry thrust" (more than a Gripen on afterburner) very large fuel fraction and a very light airframe considering the capabilities that it possesses.

Heavy and slow is it?

It weighs roughly the same as an F-15C, has virtually the same installed thrust, more fuel than an F-15C carrying a 600 gallon external drop tank and of course, carries it's weapons and sensors internally...

The term "supercruise" commonly means the ability to fly supersonically without using the afterburner, as I understand it. The Gripen can do this anecdotally. It was not a design requirement. Go and look at Gripen's home page and see if you can find the requirement for it.

What makes you so sure that the F-35 won't be able to then? Saab never said the Gripen would be able to "supercruise" back in it's development either.

FYI, the Gripen and Typhoon all claim "supercruise" capability in operational configuration. Rafale probably does too, given it's European rivals do and they all have the same anecdotal evidence (respected pilot x says it can) verifying this.

Big deal. The English Electric fighter in the 1950's could too. If a fighter from 50 years ago could do it, why are so few modern fighters "incapable" of doing it?

Because it's a term that is useful for marketing purposes as opposed to being a truly essential operational capability. Just like "thrust vectored" engine nozzles, a capability that hundreds of kilograms of weight to an aircraft, is useful for only one specific area of flight (post stall maneuvering) and adds a heap of expense both in acquisition and through the mechanical complexity of the systems.

The F-22 program spared no expense in designing the best air to air fighter the US could build. Hence it's "supercruise" capability, "full LO" (even down to not having a transmit capable data-link), thrust vectoring engine nozzles a massive AESA radar and only minimal attention paid to air to ground capability.

The F-35 is a multi-role fighter, designed from the outset to replace the F-16, F/A-18, Harrier and A-10C fighters. It is not "primarily" anything other than a multi-role fighter and when developed should prove more capable at air to air combat than any other fighter on the planet, bar F-22...

 

[Grand Danois]

Hmmm. I think Zeven said that he thinks the F-35 also can supercruise.

 

[zeven]

Grand Danios

something like that. LM says F-35 can´t but they said that about Gripen to, and they were wrong. so we just need to wait and see if F-35 can supercruise. no one really knows yet.

Aussi digger


the plane haven´t proven itself yet.
no one can say it will be superior, just by looking at some specifikations.

the new sukhoi will probably beat it big time. like Eurofighter will

 

[zeven]

anyway i don´t really care which A/C is the best on paper.

but which aircraft who is the best for the specific country in question.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Grand Danios

something like that. LM says F-35 can´t but they said that about Gripen to, and they were wrong. so we just need to wait and see if F-35 can supercruise. no one really knows yet.

Aussi digger
you seems to forget that F-35 are quite heavy,
and can able to birng aLOT of weapons, so F-35 needs a much bigger engine than Gripen. but in the end F-35 aint better here

and you can continue to say F-35 will be the best bla bla bla.

but you can´t do anything els than ASSUME

Well let's keep it simple then.

The F-135 engine produces 28,000lbs of thrust in "dry settings.

It produces 43,000lbs of thrust in reheat. These are not assumptions, but observed fact.

It has an internal weapons bay and will conduct the majority of missions with no external stores. Again, observable fact.

The F-35 airframe is of a very sleek design, will be "clean" in operational configuration. (External stores increase the radar cross section of an aircraft and increases drag. Because of the drag increase, performance and agility suffers).

The F-35 possess a wing and fuselage plan-form that indicates it is Mach 2 capable. Elementary "2D" drawings, plus the available thrust, indicate the aircraft should be capable of speeds around Mach 2.148. It's plan-form is extremely close to that of the F-22 afterall. Now this is simplistic and lots of things go into the equations needed to confirm this, but it is an observable fact that negates the ridiculous ideas that this aircraft will be "slow".

As to being heavy. So what? Have enough thrust and lift and it doesn't make any difference as far as I can see... The Concorde for instance was Mach 2.2 capable. Would you like to bet on what was heavier?

I never said the F-35 "will" supercruise, but I believe it should be capable of doing so. However I do doubt the overall utility of it in the overwhelming majority of missions anyway.

On top of which, your Gripen pilots didn't confirm how long it can keep up it's "supercruising", didn't mention anything what effect it has on the aircrafts mission radius, what effect it has on weapons separation and reliability, what the effects of the increased vibrations and stresses on the aircraft are, nor on the weapons and sensors it carries and a myriad of other data you need to confirm and therefore trying to use it as some sort of "advantage" is futile...

 

[zeven]

okay..

 

[caprise]

I Have quietly read this thread for a while now, with some amusement I have to say.

Would preferred it to stay that way as I´m not so fond of these kind of debates with claims (often without sources) going back and fourth. But some recent comments kneed an answer!

First, I don´t claim to "know it all" but could perhaps bring some clarity to certain things.

In the defence of a country the size of Denmark, i think Gripen has more then adequate range and

endurance.
But in an international commitment.
for example loitering around above the hills in Afganistan, in case a suspect looking afgan take a walk...

SAAB claims Gripen would have a impressive CAP capacity at a range of 600nm(see map link below) I think that is more than sufficient for most international missions.

hp://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1874/gripennorwaycapnorden80io6.jpg
(sorry, can´t post URL's yet, change hp to http)

As most here probably already know, fuel fraction is a measurement of a air crafts range, the formula is: Internal Fuel/empty weight + int. fuel.
AFAIK the term "super cruise" require a number above 35%.

Typhoon: 11,000/24,250 + 11,000 = 0.312

Rafale: 9,900/21,000 + 9,900 = 0.320

F-18 E/F: 14,400/30,560 + 14,400 = 0,320

Gripen E: 7,300/15,650 + 7,300 = 0,318
(Adding one external tank lands at ~36-37%, witch is what I think SAAB referred to when they mentioned super cruise with F-414G)

And further... Gripen NG can in addition to ~7300lb of internal fuel carry ~9000lb external (with a combat load of 2 BVR and 2 WVR missiles) which is not bad IMHO.

(Numbers are from various Internet sources, SAAB's is from the info material to Norway bid.)

Regarding if Gripen NG would be built or not, I think that it's almost certain that the next Gripen MLU around 2020 or so will feature the upgrade. SWAF requirement have change so will the capacity of Gripen. Remember it's not necessary to build new airframes to get E/F Gripens. Moving main gear, replace engine etc., in place for bigger internal fuel
tanks is possible with existing A/B, C/D versions. That's SAAB's design goal - to tailor the aircraft after customers needs, whether it's about radar, engine, fuel capacity...

The F-35 possesses greater thrust, a clean airframe even in operational configuration and a very sleek aerodynamic shape. It

possesses an enormous amount of 'dry thrust" (more than a Gripen on afterburner) very large fuel fraction and a very light

airframe considering the capabilities that it possesses.

Yes it has a "enormous amount" of thrust (~40000lb) but also a enormous weight (about ~60000lb). Heaviest single engine on earth to date.
That 43000lb is also not confirmed AFAIK (see source below)

That gives T/W ratio (with 2000lb of weapon and pilot):
100% fuel - 0,86
50% fuel - 1,06

hp://www.jsf.mil/downloads/mediakits/7764.zip
(sorry can´t post URL's yet, change hp to http)

All aircraft is compromises, in F-35 case, adding internal fuel also add drag...There is a reason most fighter aircraft has had a fuel fraction of around 30%.

I agree though that super cruise is mostly a slogan.

Regards/C

 

[Grand Danois]

hp://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1874/gripennorwaycapnorden80io6.jpg

Hi Caprise and welcome to DT. And welcome to this "hot thread."

I have several comments, but would like to point this one out: The distance from Andøya air station to the northern edge of Svalbard is not 600 nm as suggested in this image, but >700 nm in the real world. The radius used from Ørland is 570-635 nm depending on target, Rügen and iceland, respectively. The range from Bodø to Anholt (a DK island) is correct; Bodø to Svalbard is 620 nm real world, However 600 nm fits to the coast on the Kola Peninsula. The reason why Bodø ranges aren't distorted is because it covers the area in the image closest to the projection centre. Generally speaking, as you along a line from SE to NW, the distortion goes from an underrepresentation of range to an overrepresentation of range. The person who made it doesn't have a clue on map projections. However, I have seen this type of error on official material as well, so he is not alone in doing it.

Btw, 60k lbs is MTOW for the F-35A. E.g. Empty weight plus max internal fuel plus 5k lbs of weapons yields 42.5k lbs.

 

[zeven]

welcome Caprise.

and thanks for the post..

so where do you stand in all this gripen vs F-35 to the nordic countries debate? and gripens abilities in general.

 

[caprise]

Hi Caprise and welcome to DT. And welcome to this "hot thread."

I have several comments, but would like to point this one out: The distance from Andøya air station to the northern edge of Svalbard is not 600 nm as suggested in this image, but >700 nm in the real world. The radius used from Ørland is 570-635 nm depending on target, Rügen and iceland, respectively. The range from Bodø to Anholt (a DK island) is correct; Bodø to Svalbard is 620 nm real world, However 600 nm fits to the coast on the Kola Peninsula. The reason why Bodø ranges aren't distorted is because it covers the area closest to the projection centre of the image. Generally speaking, as you along a line of SE to NW, the distortion goes from an underrepresentation of range to an overrepresentation of range. The person who made it doesn't have a clue on map projections. However, I have seen this type of error on official material as well, so he is not alone in doing it.

Btw, 60k lbs is MTOW for the F-35A. E.g. Empty weight plus max internal fuel plus 5k lbs of weapons yields 42.5k lbs.

Thanks GD for your welcome words.

I´m to lazy to use a tape ruler but I suppose you are right about the distances.
I found the site where the original map is (Gripen_Capability, page 20), There you can also find the JSF docs among other things (Haven't been linked to before I think)
hp://www.mil.no/start/article.jhtml?articleID=134566
(Again change hp to http)

Should have mentioned that 60k was MTOW but even with your numbers T/W ratio is about the same as for a Gripen NG with a typical AA load. Point is that 40k lbs of thrust isn´t so impressive performance wise when you take the total weight in consideration.
Of course both aircraft can be equipped with even stronger engines. F414 for example can grow to about 26400 lbs but that will probably require a redesigned air intake if it is to fit in Gripen.
hp://www.deagel.com/news/F414-Growth-Demonstrator-Engine-Completes-Testing_n000001199.aspx
(Change hp to http)

welcome Caprise.

and thanks for the post..

so where do you stand in all this gripen vs F-35 to the nordic countries debate? and gripens abilities in general.

Thanks Zeven.

As a Swede (Those pesky lowlifes east of Denmark) I naturally want that Denmark and Norway choose Gripen. My hunch (for what it´s worth) is that chances are bigger in Norway, doesn´t seem to be much debate about "jaegerfly" in Denmark. Søren Gade (defence MP) appear to have the sight on F-35 if you read his comments between the lines. But I don´t follow Danish politics that close I must admit.

Regards

 

[gf0012-aust]

The person who made it doesn't have a clue on map projections. However, I have seen this type of error on official material as well, so he is not alone in doing it.

what he's failed to do is a mercator based measurement - and that infers that he doesn't map tactical distances for his normal job...

 

[Dr Freud]

Thank you for the combat radius pictures caprise, this is a whole lot more then i imagined, is this a current gripen with a fuel tank or a new enlarged gripen ?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes it has a "enormous amount" of thrust (~40000lb) but also a enormous weight (about ~60000lb). Heaviest single engine on earth to date.
That 43000lb is also not confirmed AFAIK (see source below)

That gives T/W ratio (with 2000lb of weapon and pilot):
100% fuel - 0,86
50% fuel - 1,06

hp://www.jsf.mil/downloads/mediakits/7764.zip
(sorry can´t post URL's yet, change hp to http)

Which still makes it the most powerful single engined fighter on Earth...

However I think you need to check your sources more carefully then. F-135 has demonstrated sustained 43,000lbs of thrust...

Mine is Pratt and Whittney's monthly F-135 update...

And seeing though anecdotal evidence seems to be valid (if not predominant when Euro-canards are discussed generally) in this discussion, then I really hope the GE/RR F-136 isn't cancelled. Anecdotal reports have this monster making 56,000lbs of thrust in afterburner...

As for the overall argument, well "The F-35A for the U.S. Air Force matches or exceeds F-16 performance levels and goes several steps beyond with stealth, increased range on internal fuel, and advanced avionics."

"Maneuverability characteristics are similar to those of the F-16, with comparable instantaneous and sustained 'High-G" performance."

Add in the weapons fit the F-35 have and I'm sure every user will be quite "comfortable" with it's capability...

 

[Grand Danois]

Thank you for the combat radius pictures caprise, this is a whole lot more then i imagined, is this a current gripen with a fuel tank or a new enlarged gripen ?

At the bottom is a screendump from the Eurofighter presentation.

Note how far the 500 nm subsonic cruise with 3 external tanks and 8 AAMs and 60 min CAP takes the EF from Barnak - to the southern tip of Svalbard. If you add a 100 nm you get halfway up the length of the main island of Svalbard.

The other image posted here shows that the NG will fly the entire length of said island from Barnak. It won't, because that distance is more like 700 nm.

You will also note that the plots of the ranges on the EF attachment are not circular, but distorted - they have probably been projected properly (haven't checked though).

Put crudely: a circle with a 700 nm radius covers 36% more area than a circle of 600 nm. If the ranges given on the posted image in reality reflect such a difference - a real world radius of 700 nm - then the visual effect is exponentially enhanced much more than the difference of 100 nm would suggest.

Btw, Gripen Intl made a similar figure without Barnak, EF included it. I somehow expect the twist is that the creator saw that EF had included it, and wanted to make one for Gripen too.

The attachment to the left is from the EF presentation; the middle is from the Gripen presentation, it seems accurate; the right one is an unofficial. The Gripen figure says ext fuel tank(s?). Anyone know how many?

 

[Dr Freud]

Is it possible to modify an gripen A to gripen N ? or is the gripen N longer ? i can barely believe that tiny plane has such a long combat radius.

btw, if anyone want to make an guesstimated radius circle image from the same bases with f35, bring it on

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, according to GI: As long as you stick to 4 AAMs and external fuel tank(s?) you have 90 min CAP at 600 nm.

What combat radius is with a heavier loadout? Well, if anyone has any info, feel free to contribute.

Edit: I see you changed the content of your post.

 

[Dr Freud]

So Gripen N is just a Gripen with some squeezed in tanks, and perhaps a couple of small conformal tanks ? (never mind electronics blabla) i'm just terrible curious if A model can be upgraded to N model.
Because it is soo much more likely to see daylight.