Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 53 of 54 FirstFirst ... 343495051525354 LastLast
Results 1,561 to 1,590 of 1613

Thread: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

  1. #1561
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,305
    Not just the adapter, but all the studies on the ground that go into ensuring safe separation and then all the flight trials to prove the integration and safe separation in different parts of the flying envelope.

    I've not yet seen a AIM-9X, Python-V or Derby on a Gripen. You could put a * mark next to those missiles too and add the IRIS-T to the list.

  2. #1562
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,841
    Considering most of them use the same messaging protocol evolved from AIM-9, probably not so much. And MICA feasibility was already studied. MBDA once had ideas to push them out on non-French fighters. The high price made it untenable.

    Last edited by MadRat; 17th June 2017 at 00:47.
    Go Huskers!

  3. #1563
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,391
    Enemy ??

    This is a prototype jet, not even close to being in service and seeing action. The idea of putting a scheme on it that clearly distinguishes this PROTOTYPE Gripen E as a PROTOTYPE and not an in-service Gripen is what I'm talking about. A spiffy look does good for PR, something that Saab is generally a master at. Except this one time.
    So why did you call it camouflage? It looks as if what you mean is a conspicuous paint scheme of the sort used for air shows and the like. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it isn't camouflage.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  4. #1564
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,376
    Considering most of them use the same messaging protocol evolved from AIM-9, probably not so much. And MICA feasibility was already studied. MBDA once had ideas to push them out on non-French fighters. The high price made it untenable.
    They, along with every other weapon & fighter manufacturer needs to read the writing on the wall. It spells "UAI". NATO has their own version called NUAI.


    http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs...sion-munitions
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  5. #1565
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    Will be sunday afternoon at the SAFF dinner; Any specific question?

  6. #1566
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,007
    Sure, exact numbers for empty weight, internal fuel (C and E models) plus MTOW would be nice
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  7. #1567
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    They did not want to disclose yet during first flight web conference.

  8. #1568
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    The numbers have been on the brochure already and they were not good.

    https://saab.com/globalassets/commer...g-brochure.pdf

  9. #1569
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    Clearing the architecture before flight should speed the test program as new functionality can be added and tested without having to be re-qualified as successive iterations of the basic architecture are introduced. Based on RTCA 1788/C civilian standards, the DIMA avionics architecture allows developers to concentrate on software functions without having to take into account how they might affect the aircraft’s systems–in much the same way as app developers can plug in functionality to smartphones. Not only does this speed the pace of initial development, but in the future it will permit the rapid insertion of new technology and functionality without the need to re-qualify flight-critical systems every time.
    First deliveries of production aircraft are due in 2019. Initial aircraft for Sweden will have the MS21 software load that provides a basic air-to-air fighter capability, but by the end of 2023 the first true multi-role squadron with the full-specification MS22 software is scheduled to become operational. The Swedish air force plans to have all six of its fighter squadrons operating 60 Gripen Es with MS22 by 2026.
    Read more: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...en-renaissance

  10. #1570
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    Even as Saab celebrates the first flight of its JAS 39 Gripen E-series aircraft, the bulk of its near-term international sales opportunities center around the in-production C/D model.

    The aircraft manufacturer says that three sales opportunities are on the near horizon: new C-models for Botswana in Africa and for NATO members Slovakia and Bulgaria in Eastern Europe.

    Elsewhere, Saab is offering either the Gripen C/D or E/F, depending on budget and capability, to Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Columbia, Finland, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Switzerland.
    Read more: http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-sh...ripen-campaign

    Belgium, Canada and Finland: chances are 0 (Belgium/Canada) or very close to 0 (Finland) in those competitions. I don't understand why Saab bothers to stay in them. F-35 is too strong and the price keeps dropping.

  11. #1571
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    They, along with every other weapon & fighter manufacturer needs to read the writing on the wall. It spells "UAI". NATO has their own version called NUAI.


    http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs...sion-munitions
    Since this is the Gripen thread:

    The project has attracted the attention of many of NATO's key air forces. Aside from Canada, which is leading the effort, NATO nations Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Turkey and the US are involved, plus nonmember Sweden...
    So perhaps Gripen E will have this interface?

  12. #1572
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke
    Belgium, Canada and Finland: chances are 0 (Belgium/Canada) or very close to 0 (Finland) in those competitions. I don't understand why Saab bothers to stay in them. F-35 is too strong and the price keeps dropping.
    I find the Canada effort particularly puzzling. Outside of a few goofballs with blogs nobody thinks the Gripen would be anything but an absolutely nutty choice for Canada.

  13. #1573
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,412
    I find the Canada effort particularly puzzling. Outside of a few goofballs with blogs nobody thinks the Gripen would be anything but an absolutely nutty choice for Canada.
    X2

    The chances of Gripen landing the Canadian contract must be identical to getting a snow fall in Ougadougou. SAAB is going to land quite a decent number of exports, but not in a place like Canada!

  14. #1574
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    find the Canada effort particularly puzzling. Outside of a few goofballs with blogs nobody thinks the Gripen would be anything but an absolutely nutty choice for Canada.
    I agree -- OTOH one could argue that ordering 18 SH as a "stop gap" is also an absolutely nutty idea, and still, that is what they planned on doing (at least until Boeing started accusing the Canadians for subsidizing Bombardier...).

  15. #1575
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    They told me for E, roughly empty weiht 8000, MTOW around 16500

  16. #1576
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    163
    We already knew the rough numbers long time ago.

  17. #1577
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    IF you want numbers with the exact kg, they nusually vary between two airframes you know?

  18. #1578
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,117
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene
    IF you want numbers with the exact kg, they nusually vary between two airframes you know?
    Well, there is only one airframe right now so... not a problem.


  19. #1579
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    IF you want numbers with the exact kg, they nusually vary between two airframes you know?
    That OEW would also vary based on the config of the jet. I expect if a customer puts all the options in the jet SAAB has been advertising the OEW will rise at least another 300-500 kgs.

  20. #1580
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    68
    Belgium & Canada - far fetched, but if successful, they would guarantee a huge opening for Saab among other NATO forces.

    However, Brazil was a far-fetched option as well, with fierce competition from Rafale [Which Silva government preferred and France backed with heavy military deals] and the Super Bug [which Embraer preferred due to the industrial opening to the American market]. Yet, the Gripen won. Fair and square. Switzerland was a far fetched option too, yet won over the same two alternatives. Entering a competition might cost millions of dollars, but if won would generate billions of dollars of revenue and increase sale opportunities elsewhere.

    You're quick to dismiss Gripens chances in Finland, but the Finnish Defense force does not operate in ways like Norway/Denmark. They opt for strategic solutions. Bang for the buck. Reliability. Gripens chances in Finland are WAY beyond those of the F-35. Something many of Finlands military experts have been supporting for months. Unless LHM does something incredible for Finland, they will most likely face a loss. Boeing stands a better chance in many ways with the new upgraded hornets and their possibilites of industrial/strategic solutions. But then again, not even close to what the Gripen/SwAF can offer.

  21. #1581
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    Agreee. i just mention the numbers given to me by SAAB. Btw, Swaf chief of staff said after ACEX that Gripen C with MS20 software (enhancing radar performance) with METEOR is maybe the best plane in the world atm.

  22. #1582
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    I disagree about Gripen's chances in Belgium and Canada -- it is much less than far fetched. Both are NATO countries; in addition Canada is F-35 partner; and even if the current PM is "against" the F-35 (for whatever reason) there is no doubt they will purchase an American a/c. Thus the F-16 has a bigger chance of being accepted in Canada than the Gripen.

    For Belgium there is a clos collaboration with Holland; in addition there is the "nuke requirement" which is not expressed clearly but nevertheless it's there. And again, Belgium is a NATO country and will prefer to fly what most other NATO countries will use.

    For Finland Gripen's chances are perhaps slightly above zero, but no by much (1-2%?). Thus very close to zero. Since the cost of F-35 is dropping and will keep dropping there will probably not be much cost benefit of purchasing Gripen instead of F-35, in particular when taking into account that Gripen will not offer the same "comprehensive" solution as F-35. You would need some extra assets to reach the same capability level. Also, the F-35 is bigger and has longer range, and longer-ranged sensors thus you probably need X+Y Gripen to do what X F-35 can do. As stated previously Sweden will have to supplement the Gripen with other assets and how will they do that without losing money on the deal (and without losing the deal)?

    Saab should concentrate on countries where F-35 is an unlikely contender; e.g., India, Malaysia, Philipines, Indonesia, South America, Switzerland, Austria. A few years down the line perhaps also some African countries.

  23. #1583
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,116
    Longer ranges sensors? How do you know that? And in what the Gripen solution would be less "comprehensive" than F-35. There may also be a huge gap in CFPH.

  24. #1584
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    Agreee. i just mention the numbers given to me by SAAB. Btw, Swaf chief of staff said after ACEX that Gripen C with MS20 software (enhancing radar performance) with METEOR is maybe the best plane in the world atm.
    Gripen C w. Meteor is extremely dangerous in a2a however I think F-22 and F-35 are even more so...

    Against 4. gen a/c all three will probably have roughly the same scores (99-1 or something like that).

    However once Rafale and Typhoon obtain Meteor they will probably become as lethal as the Gripen.

    And one difference between Gripen C w. Meteor and F-22/F-35 is that the latter will probably score equally well against PAK FA and J-20 -- I am less certain about the Gripen C in those scenarios.

    Finally one should not forget that a2a is much less important these days than a2g...

  25. #1585
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    Longer ranges sensors? How do you know that? And in what the Gripen solution would be less "comprehensive" than F-35. There may also be a huge gap in CFPH.
    Well, the F-35 radar has definitely much longer range -- also the DAS system give unique SA to the pilot. However it is really the combination of stealth, sensors and sensor fusion which is key.

    Gripen no doubt has great sensors and sensor fusion however it lacks stealth, and the sensors are not as good. There was big gap in sensor capabilities in the Norwegian competition between Gripen and F-35, perhaps this has changed since then but I would think the F-35 sensors are still ahead. One should also keep in mind F-35 will develop and improve it's sensors to a very great extent, the US will not allow the F-35 sensor to be "behind". And again don't forget about the stealth....

    Look at how SH and Typhoon fared compared to the F-35 in the Danish competition -- those graphs are around the net. For the most demanding missions there is a significant difference. Looking at the scenarios in the Belgium competition (which seems to be specially designed to "favor" the F-35) I think this will become even more clear. A 4-ship of F-35 will manage to execute missions that a 4-ship of Gripen will not succeed to execute. Perhaps the Rafale F4 will get closer, but I suspect even the Rafale F4 will struggle; and moreover the Rafale F4 will be more expensive... why pay more to get less?

  26. #1586
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    120
    Is there anyone that has reliable data on how many aircrafts you need to maintain a certain
    sortie rate per day for the F-35.
    I have seen old claims of 4-6 sorties per day, and newer claims that the F-35 can only
    fly every second day.
    If that latter is true, then you probably need many more F-35s to fulfill the job of a Gripen.

  27. #1587
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    646
    The US F-35 sortie rate KPP is clearly defined and has been posted on the forum about 400 times in the last 5 years. Name:  2007KPPusedbyCRSin2012.png
Views: 230
Size:  100.8 KB

    F-35 A/C the KPP is 3 surge/2 sustained
    F-35B the KPP is 4 surge/3 sustained

    The difference is a recognition of the operational requirements of the respective variants, not a specific limitation of the jet. The Bee is likely to operate closer to base on shorter CAS runs while the A/C will operate from longer ranges and hence have less time to generate more sorties within the one day. GW 1 & 2 demonstrated F-16s and other 4th gen aircraft flying 10-12 hour sorties with continued AAR and given F-35 internal fuel loads that wil be no problem. Alternatively, I've seen the same Hornets hot turned and flown 6+ WVR sorties in one day when the mission duration is short.

    Hence there will be no appreciable difference between sortie rate for the Gripen and F-35.

  28. #1588
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    68
    I disagree about Gripen's chances in Belgium and Canada -- it is much less than far fetched. Both are NATO countries; in addition Canada is F-35 partner; and even if the current PM is "against" the F-35 (for whatever reason) there is no doubt they will purchase an American a/c. Thus the F-16 has a bigger chance of being accepted in Canada than the Gripen.

    For Belgium there is a clos collaboration with Holland; in addition there is the "nuke requirement" which is not expressed clearly but nevertheless it's there. And again, Belgium is a NATO country and will prefer to fly what most other NATO countries will use.
    As I said; Belgium and Canada are far fetched. Not impossible, but far fetched. As with all large international fighter competitions, it would be a huge defeat not to participate. Even if there is a slight chance, it's a chance worth taking. If any of those contracts are won, they'd generate an incredible amount of opportunities and success for Saab.

    For Finland Gripen's chances are perhaps slightly above zero, but no by much (1-2%?). Thus very close to zero. Since the cost of F-35 is dropping and will keep dropping there will probably not be much cost benefit of purchasing Gripen instead of F-35, in particular when taking into account that Gripen will not offer the same "comprehensive" solution as F-35. You would need some extra assets to reach the same capability level. Also, the F-35 is bigger and has longer range, and longer-ranged sensors thus you probably need X+Y Gripen to do what X F-35 can do. As stated previously Sweden will have to supplement the Gripen with other assets and how will they do that without losing money on the deal (and without losing the deal)?

    Saab should concentrate on countries where F-35 is an unlikely contender; e.g., India, Malaysia, Philipines, Indonesia, South America, Switzerland, Austria. A few years down the line perhaps also some African countries.
    That's just ridiculous. In terms of costs you forget the a) high maintenance cost, b) the high operational costs, c) the high cost for any potential future upgrade, and d) the high cost for conversion of the entire air forces logistics [see Norway]. With the LRIP costs coming down [not being particularly low in recent days] and there's still a lot of problems being fixed, there's no guarrantee that the F-35 ever will be so cheap that is claimed. I don't see how Finland would get a cheaper deal than e.g. Norway or Denmark seeing as Finland never gave any funding to the program and is not a NATO member. JSF would not be able to guarrantee any industrial benefits for Finland, as LHM have already set up everything in terms of deals for all partner members in Europe. All money spent on the JSF would go to the JSF. Little if anything would go back into Finlands economy.

    You can't deny the fact that the Gripen is the most cost-effective solution. It screams SISU. It's a smart fighter. A fighter that focuses on availability, combat readiness and strategic solutions. Having a few F-35's with limited time in the air, grouped together into one airfield due to budget constraints is not SISU. Until the F-35 shows that it can use dispersed and improvised runways, be tactically placed around Finland with a high combat readiness, the JSF is not a real option. And remember, at this point we haven't even begun to talk about the comprehensive industrial and bilateral package that the Gripen/SwAF would contribute to Finland and the FAF.

    Please do describe what the F-35 can do, that the SwAF will have to complement the Gripen with. In Sweden, the discussions have been about a broad spectrum of capabilities of the military, not what we lack in regards to the JSF.

  29. #1589
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    646
    You forget the most important part of the equation, the actual ability of the Gripen in Finnish service to detect, fight and defeat 5th gen threats such as the PAK-FA. There is little point being cheap if the jet cannot meet the operational requirements of 2030 let alone 2040...

    As for your other points,
    - There is plenty of industrial work for non F-35 partners, as seen in South Korea and Japan. Also the industrial work opportunities offered by the F-35 dwarfs the Gripen, even for a non partner nation like Finland.
    - There will likely be a global fleet of over 3000 F-35 aircraft maintained and operated till 2070. Gripen E will be lucky to get to 250 aircraft, operated by fringe air forces who will invest little in upgrades.
    - Finland would be able to apply any F-35 Blk upgrade and almost certainly not have to pay for any upgrade development.
    - As for the cost to acquire the jet, Finland would be able to use FMS channels which will provide the jet as the same cost as the USAF with approx. 4-6% on top in fees and administration.
    - Dispersal and operation for the F-35 will be no different than the Gripen.

  30. #1590
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,357
    With the LRIP costs coming down [not being particularly low in recent days] and there's still a lot of problems being fixed, there's no guarrantee that the F-35 ever will be so cheap that is claimed. I don't see how Finland would get a cheaper deal than e.g. Norway or Denmark seeing as Finland never gave any funding to the program and is not a NATO member. JSF would not be able to guarrantee any industrial benefits for Finland, as LHM have already set up everything in terms of deals for all partner members in Europe. All money spent on the JSF would go to the JSF. Little if anything would go back into Finlands economy.
    Finland would go through FMS, the FMS deals with S. Korea and Japan were based on the LRIP prices at the time of the contract. It is important to remember that those agreements are estimated on the high side, now compare them to contracts signed for Rafale and F-15. As far as industrial benefits, those are outlined in the RFI. Saying that there would be no industrial benefit for Finland is silly, that is part of the process.
    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...tition-outcome

    ou can't deny the fact that the Gripen is the most cost-effective solution. It screams SISU. It's a smart fighter. A fighter that focuses on availability, combat readiness and strategic solutions. Having a few F-35's with limited time in the air, grouped together into one airfield due to budget constraints is not SISU. Until the F-35 shows that it can use dispersed and improvised runways, be tactically placed around Finland with a high combat readiness, the JSF is not a real option. And remember, at this point we haven't even begun to talk about the comprehensive industrial and bilateral package that the Gripen/SwAF would contribute to Finland and the FAF.
    Marketing terms like "smart fighter" mean little. The Gripen E/F just flew for the first time last week. I would say there is some risk involved in a project that is just starting flight testing and integration. The basing decisions are wholly predicated on FAF, the F-35 would operate from the same airfields as the Gripen. There is nothing about the Gripen E/F that makes it more conducive to dispersed basing.
    Last edited by FBW; 20th June 2017 at 12:29.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES