Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 49 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 1445

Thread: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,441
    I think that might've been about ten years ago... but in any case isn't 2030-35 the projected timeframe for the new carrier? I was referring to potentially operating Super Etendards from Sao Paulo as a way of bridging the gap to the new carrier (and waiting on Sea Gripen or Naval Tejas).
    Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    Moving towards a PW-229 evolution probably better suited a bigger Gripen than F414, even in an EPE version. Too little, too late IMHO.
    No possible way to make it fit. Don't forget the Gripen NG is a tweaked Gripen... not an all-new airframe like the Super Hornet. Clearly the F414 isn't an ideal engine for Gripen NG, but that is what you get when you build your aircraft from off the shelf parts.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,098
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    No possible way to make it fit. Don't forget the Gripen NG is a tweaked Gripen... not an all-new airframe like the Super Hornet. Clearly the F414 isn't an ideal engine for Gripen NG, but that is what you get when you build your aircraft from off the shelf parts.
    To me it seems like a very good fit.

    Or are you saying that the whole a/c should have been designed to meet a different set of requirements and therefore be completely different? Well then it would not have been Gripen NG...


    It's a bit like saying that the engine in a Volkswagen Golf is not ideal to the Golf...

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,441
    Don't feed the troll.
    Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    To me it seems like a very good fit.

    Or are you saying that the whole a/c should have been designed to meet a different set of requirements and therefore be completely different? Well then it would not have been Gripen NG...

    It's a bit like saying that the engine in a Volkswagen Golf is not ideal to the Golf...
    He's basically trying to say that Gripen would be perfect if it was powered by F135, weighed as much as the F-35, looked like an F-35, flown like an F-35, had EOTS and EODAS and was built by LockMart. Then it would be well suited for everything..

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,050
    nah, i think he was joining @madrat's line of thought, in an attempt to belittle gripen E,
    but firstly, an F414 EPE has more power than PW-229, so the entire theory is illogical,
    secondly, a wider diameter would negatively affect area distribution which as current is better than any other fighter,
    and thirdly this aerodynamics T/D more than compensate T/W,
    in addition it would have required a lot more work.

    i think its right on the spot design wise, but far too late, this is what C should have been,
    when sweden anyway had no urgent need for more fighters, due to soviet meltdown
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,225
    Oblig- what are you smoking?

    -229 is more powerful than the proposed -414 EPE, that btw, is not the Gripen's engine and won't be unless a customer want to pick up development costs.

    Add- the F414 is the perfect engine for the Gripen. Mature, large production run, compact, powerful, low bypass. The EPE, if ever funded ( say USN) would be a beast for the Gripen E/F (with 11-1 thrust to weight it would be an impressive engine). For now, the F414G is a good choice.
    Last edited by FBW; 4th February 2016 at 14:16.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    To me it seems like a very good fit.

    Or are you saying that the whole a/c should have been designed to meet a different set of requirements and therefore be completely different? Well then it would not have been Gripen NG...


    It's a bit like saying that the engine in a Volkswagen Golf is not ideal to the Golf...
    Yes, my point is simply that the 229 is a substantially larger and heavier engine that quite simply would not fit without a major airframe redesign. (Something Saab is avoiding to control costs.)

    It is like asking why VW doesn't put its 5.2L v10 engine from the R8 into a Golf.

    Edit, of course ideally an airframe and an engine would be designed in concert, as I am sure was the case when the Gripen was first designed with the f404 in mind. The problem in this case is that when Saab set out to design the Gripen NG it's extra fuel, avionics, etc drove the weight much higher, necessitating a more powerful engine. The F414 is 20% more powerful than the F404, but not really as powerful as Saab would like. Hypothetically Saab could pay GE to produce the uprated F414epe variant of the f414, but that of course costs money. That is my point about Saab being limited to what is available off the shelf.
    Last edited by hopsalot; 4th February 2016 at 15:46.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    He's basically trying to say that Gripen would be perfect if it was powered by F135, weighed as much as the F-35, looked like an F-35, flown like an F-35, had EOTS and EODAS and was built by LockMart. Then it would be well suited for everything..
    No, I was saying it wouldn't fit.

    Bigger engine too big for hole in plane for engine.

    Simple enough for you?

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,098
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Edit, of course ideally an airframe and an engine would be designed in concert, as I am sure was the case when the Gripen was first designed with the f404 in mind. The problem in this case is that when Saab set out to design the Gripen NG it's extra fuel, avionics, etc drove the weight much higher, necessitating a more powerful engine. The F414 is 20% more powerful than the F404, but not really as powerful as Saab would like.
    How do you know that the F414 is not as powerful as Saab would like? I am not saying you are incorrect; I simply don't know, however I am curious to know how you obtained that piece of information?

    Edit: Although supercruise at Mach1.1 in an a2a config may not be particularly useful; does that not seem to indicate that the F414 is adequate for Gripen NG?

    Or is SC not a good indication for whether it is underpowered or not?

    Edit2: empty weight of NG is (I believe) 17% more than empty weight of Gripen C. MTOW is also 17% more than MTOW for Gripen C. Engine is 20% more powerful. Is that so shabby?
    Last edited by Loke; 4th February 2016 at 16:53.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    i'm thinking brazilians are aiming to complete the carrier for duty 2030-35,
    when Etendards are eligible for elderly home with ICU for each bed
    The Brasilians are aiming for a NEW carrier in 2030/2035. The main fighter of the "São Paulo" is (and will be for a very long time) the A-4 Skyhawk, twelve of the airframes are being through a massive upgrade and "rehab".
    And there´s a clear gap between Brasilian military aspirations and their budget, this is (by far and wide) the biggest problem for the Brasilians to develop and deploy a Saab Kraken.
    Last edited by Sintra; 4th February 2016 at 17:27.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Amazon Jungle
    Posts
    230
    The SAAB deal with Brazil is under scrutiny. Corruption alegations involving former president Lula da Silva.
    Source in portuguese.

    http://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/deleg...lotes-18606601

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Boy View Post
    The SAAB deal with Brazil is under scrutiny. Corruption alegations involving former president Lula da Silva.
    Source in portuguese.

    http://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/deleg...lotes-18606601
    Translation of part referring to SAAB:

    NB Luis Claudio is the son of ex-president Lula

    'Lula was also asked whether payments made to Luis Claudio were some kind of consideration for services rendered by the former president of the company Saab, which won the bid for the purchase of fighter jets to the Brazilian Air Force (FAB). Lula said it was "absurd" and denied having acted accordingly.'

    Way I read it is the investigators were querying whether payments made to Luis Claudio by the former president of SAAB were connected with SAAB getting the Gripen contract. Why would he be making payments to Lula's son?
    Sum ergo cogito

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Amazon Jungle
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post

    Way I read it is the investigators were querying whether payments made to Luis Claudio by the former president of SAAB were connected with SAAB getting the Gripen contract. Why would he be making payments to Lula's son?
    I can´t aswer that without being banned for a month as I was before over the same subject and guess what? I was right. Where there´s smoke there´s fire, especially in Brazil

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,629
    As sad as it is, I don't think that any major deal can be won today without some kind of corruption involved..
    People have bribed for much less than deals woth billions..

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,629
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    No, I was saying it wouldn't fit.
    Bigger engine too big for hole in plane for engine.
    Simple enough for you?
    Actually, no... obviously not simple enough.. The F414 is not visibly bigger than F404, they both have fan diameter of 89 cm and are 391 cm in length.. How is that engine not ideal for Gripen NG is beyond me.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Actually, no... obviously not simple enough.. The F414 is not visibly bigger than F404, they both have fan diameter of 89 cm and are 391 cm in length.. How is that engine not ideal for Gripen NG is beyond me.
    I am reminded once again never to assume you know what the discussion is about...

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Amazon Jungle
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    As sad as it is, I don't think that any major deal can be won today without some kind of corruption involved..
    People have bribed for much less than deals woth billions..
    But in Brazil this is obscene. The Elf scandal is peanuts compared to Petrobras. The japanese economy minister renounced over one hundred Thousand dollars, this is pocket money for a corrupt brazilian politician. An employee of a brazilian politician was arrested in 2005 with one hundred Thousand dollars in his underwear. It became a joke in Brazil, kind of a symbol of corruption.
    Last edited by Jungle Boy; 4th February 2016 at 22:37.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    No, I was saying it wouldn't fit.

    Bigger engine too big for hole in plane for engine.

    Simple enough for you?
    Very simple. Unfortunately what you say is almost certainly completely wrong. Only way that what you say is not completely wrong is if GE are mistaken in the dimensions they give on their web site which are exactly the dimensions quoted by msphere. You say the F414 is a bigger engine than the F404. GE say it is not.
    Sum ergo cogito

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Amazon Jungle
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    The Brasilians are aiming for a NEW carrier in 2030/2035. The main fighter of the "São Paulo" is (and will be for a very long time) the A-4 Skyhawk, twelve of the airframes are being through a massive upgrade and "rehab".
    And there´s a clear gap between Brasilian military aspirations and their budget, this is (by far and wide) the biggest problem for the Brasilians to develop and deploy a Saab Kraken.
    Talk is cheap and the brazilian navy talks a lot.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    How do you know that the F414 is not as powerful as Saab would like? I am not saying you are incorrect; I simply don't know, however I am curious to know how you obtained that piece of information?

    Edit: Although supercruise at Mach1.1 in an a2a config may not be particularly useful; does that not seem to indicate that the F414 is adequate for Gripen NG?

    Or is SC not a good indication for whether it is underpowered or not?

    Edit2: empty weight of NG is (I believe) 17% more than empty weight of Gripen C. MTOW is also 17% more than MTOW for Gripen C. Engine is 20% more powerful. Is that so shabby?

    I can't read Saab's mind(s) but if you look at some of the fighters currently in production the Gripen NG falls at the very low-end of the range. I suspect if the F414EPE were to become available Saab would be very quick to jump on it.

    F-15E
    Empty Weight: 31,700
    Thrust: 58,000
    Power/Weight: 1.83

    Eurofighter
    Empty Weight: 24,250
    Thrust: 40,460
    Power/Weight: 1.67

    Rafale
    Empty Weight: 21,270
    Thrust: 34,000
    Power/Weight: 1.60

    F-16
    Empty Weight: 18,900
    Thrust: 28,600
    Power/Weight: 1.51

    F-35A
    Empty Weight: 29,098
    Thrust: 43,000
    Power/Weight: 1.48

    Super Hornet
    Empty Weight: 32,081
    Thrust: 44,000
    Power/Weight: 1.37

    Su-30MKI
    Empty Weight: 40,565
    Thrust: 55,120
    Power/Weight: 1.36

    JF-17
    Empty Weight: 14,520
    Thrust: 19,000
    Power/Weight: 1.31

    Gripen NG
    Empty Weight: 17,600
    Thrust: 22,000
    Power/Weight: 1.25

    Gripen
    Empty Weight: 14,990
    Thrust: 18,100
    Power/Weight: 1.21

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Yes, the F414 would fit and this has already been demonstrated in the Gripen Demo.

    We aren't talking about the F414. We are talking about the F100-PW-229, a totally different and substantially larger engine.
    Last edited by hopsalot; 5th February 2016 at 00:22.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,629
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    I am reminded once again never to assume you know what the discussion is about...
    Quoting your own words:
    Clearly the F414 isn't an ideal engine for Gripen NG, but that is what you get when you build your aircraft from off the shelf parts.
    Post #122

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Quoting your own words:
    Clearly the F414 isn't an ideal engine for Gripen NG, but that is what you get when you build your aircraft from off the shelf parts.
    Post #122
    Yes, I also mentioned the f414, the engine that powers the Gripen NG.(it fits!)

    My apologies if you found that confusing but sometimes in a discussion of engines people will mention multiple different engines...

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Yes, the F414 would fit and this has already been demonstrated in the Gripen Demo.

    The problem is that we aren't talking about the F414. We are talking about the F100-PW-229, a totally different and substantially larger engine.
    Sorry. My bad.
    Sum ergo cogito

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    Sorry. My bad.
    My apologies as well. It wasn't completely clear.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,177
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    I can't read Saab's mind(s) but if you look at some of the fighters currently in production the Gripen NG falls at the very low-end of the range. I suspect if the F414EPE were to become available Saab would be very quick to jump on it.

    F-15E
    Empty Weight: 31,700
    Thrust: 58,000
    Power/Weight: 1.83

    Eurofighter
    Empty Weight: 24,250
    Thrust: 40,460
    Power/Weight: 1.67

    Rafale
    Empty Weight: 21,270
    Thrust: 34,000
    Power/Weight: 1.60

    F-16
    Empty Weight: 18,900
    Thrust: 28,600
    Power/Weight: 1.51

    F-35A
    Empty Weight: 29,098
    Thrust: 43,000
    Power/Weight: 1.48

    Super Hornet
    Empty Weight: 32,081
    Thrust: 44,000
    Power/Weight: 1.37

    Su-30MKI
    Empty Weight: 40,565
    Thrust: 55,120
    Power/Weight: 1.36

    JF-17
    Empty Weight: 14,520
    Thrust: 19,000
    Power/Weight: 1.31

    Gripen NG
    Empty Weight: 17,600
    Thrust: 22,000
    Power/Weight: 1.25

    Gripen
    Empty Weight: 14,990
    Thrust: 18,100
    Power/Weight: 1.21
    So F-18E heavier than F-15E even though F-18E only rated for 7.6G and made of composites. you can't compare non AESA F-16 wright with AESA GripenNG.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,988
    The F414 is not the same as the F404. While maximum engine diameter is the same (35 inches), inlet diameter is not. It grew from 28 to 31 inches. So it's not exactly plug and play.

    Edit: from this video:
    ...only limited changes were needed in the main engine bay and the main air intakes were widened to achieve correct airflow.
    Last edited by eagle; 5th February 2016 at 00:52.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,629
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Yes, I also mentioned the f414, the engine that powers the Gripen NG.(it fits!)
    My apologies if you found that confusing but sometimes in a discussion of engines people will mention multiple different engines...
    I've reread the whole discussion and am getting your point now.. It wasn't 100% clear which engine you had in mind, now it's obvious it was the F100.
    Thanks for the clarification..

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,629
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle View Post
    The F414 is not the same as the F404. While maximum engine diameter is the same (35 inches), inlet diameter is not. It grew from 28 to 31 inches. So it's not exactly plug and play.
    Some sources like MTU say 32 in. But looks like the redesign work from F404 to F414 ain't a major one, both SAAB and HAL have decided to go that route with the Gripen NG and Tejas Mk2.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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