Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 94

Thread: F-10 vs Gripen NG

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    Interestingly, Flightglobal has just published this:
    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-fighters.html
    So it may well be the J-10B...
    ...and at a price of ~38m$ per plane, meaning that J10 could be introduced in significantly larger numbers then potential competitors and thus create further problems for opposing air forces...

    Price:
    1xF22 = 9xJ10
    Last edited by Cola1973; 13th November 2009 at 17:01.
    Cheers, Cola

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Showtime 100 View Post
    I think u need this video to prove better. Short take off and steep climb immediately.. I am waiting for what type of combat plane can match that performaces..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VwTbc8IEBU

    (Remember both plane is in empty loaded mode so come don't in and bit*h abt J-10 is empty load so can easily do that.. F-16 and Mirage 2000 with empty load can never do that.)

    *Edit* Added Gripen take off video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcpJUt9v_8A

    U be the judge who is better
    Not a realistic comparison IMO. The TWR for the Gripen and the J-10 are relatively comparable, so their acceleration on take off should be similar, perhaps with a slight advantage for the J-10. The Gripens lower wingloading OTOH might give it a lower lift off speed.

    Anyways, the J-10 take off roll before rotation(in the video) is 3-4 seconds longer than that for the Gripen, which suggests that the J-10 pilot decided to rotate at a much higher speed than normal. The 3-4 seconds longer roll should give at least another 100km/h before the pilot rotates, which give more lift for a more spectacular take off. There's no doubt in my mind, that should the pilot choose to, I'm sure a Gripen, as well as an F-16 or a Mirage 2000 could do the same.

    Just my view on it.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    965

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by robban View Post
    Gripen 360 in 16 seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACDGkNa77Rs

    Starts at 3:32 ends at 3:48.
    errr.....no....

    Thats not the complete video..... At what point did JAS-39 Gripen start the turn?

    I think this is the full video. Contains both the Hungarian & Swedish demos. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKglcbDUhGE

    It starts to turn at around 8:14+ and levels off at around 8:35-36.....

    Around 20 seconds. Like many others.

    But I accept what Cola1973 said. These are just air-shows. What happens in real training/combat is a different story.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by QuantumFX View Post
    errr.....no....

    Thats not the complete video..... At what point did JAS-39 Gripen start the turn?

    I think this is the full video. Contains both the Hungarian & Swedish demos. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKglcbDUhGE

    It starts to turn at around 8:14+ and levels off at around 8:35-36.....

    Around 20 seconds. Like many others.

    But I accept what Cola1973 said. These are just air-shows. What happens in real training/combat is a different story.
    I didn't time it from bank to roll out. It makes a complete 360 circle in 16 seconds though, in your link as well. He starts to turn(not bank) at 8:17, and has made a 360 at 8:33. If you time it from when it begins the turn till it stops the turn the plane has made more than 400 degree turn. It's a nice sustained turn as well.

    But, yes it's an airshow. Put some missiles on it and add some altitude and well get a completely different tun time. But that goes for every other aircraft aswell, so.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,207
    Quote Originally Posted by robban View Post
    I didn't time it from bank to roll out. It makes a complete 360 circle in 16 seconds though, in your link as well. He starts to turn(not bank) at 8:17, and has made a 360 at 8:33. If you time it from when it begins the turn till it stops the turn the plane has made more than 400 degree turn. It's a nice sustained turn as well.

    But, yes it's an airshow. Put some missiles on it and add some altitude and well get a completely different tun time. But that goes for every other aircraft aswell, so.
    Right. banking doesn't matter and this 16 seconds puts Gripen in very competitive position even against higher powered F16s. I'd imagine the situation with NG would be considerably better, since it gained only 200kg in weight, for ~1.8t of thrust.
    Maximum turn rates are usually expressed in clean condition and if one reads that Mig29 turns 24°/sec, it would be clean as well.
    Cheers, Cola

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by QuantumFX View Post
    Some officially released details (recently) about the J-10/J-10A are:
    Do you have a reference you could site? I haven't seen anything yet that bears the "official" stamp of either Chengdu or the PLAAF - so if there's one out there I'd love to see it.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    965

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Cola1973 View Post
    Right. banking doesn't matter and this 16 seconds puts Gripen in very competitive position even against higher powered F16s. I'd imagine the situation with NG would be considerably better, since it gained only 200kg in weight, for ~1.8t of thrust.
    Maximum turn rates are usually expressed in clean condition and if one reads that Mig29 turns 24°/sec, it would be clean as well.
    Oh ok..... I roughly have to shave-off 3sec on almost all the videos.

    That brings the Su-27, MiG-29 around 13 sec.... All others around the 16+ mark.

    I am looking for the Rafale video...? anyone got that?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,207
    Quote Originally Posted by QuantumFX View Post
    Oh ok..... I roughly have to shave-off 3sec on almost all the videos.
    That brings the Su-27, MiG-29 around 13 sec.... All others around the 16+ mark.I am looking for the Rafale video...? anyone got that?
    Not really.
    Mig29 in video you posted earlier does clean 15sec turn without rolling in and that doesn't take 3 seconds either, but under 1, usually.

    As for that Rafale video, I've sent PM to arthuro and I hope he still got it somewhere.
    Last edited by Cola1973; 14th November 2009 at 14:30.
    Cheers, Cola

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    965

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by fltgshdw View Post
    Do you have a reference you could site? I haven't seen anything yet that bears the "official" stamp of either Chengdu or the PLAAF - so if there's one out there I'd love to see it.
    Stats were from an interview with the Deputy Commander of the PLAAF and the 60th Anniversary show.

    http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/a...10_Specs_1.jpg
    Last edited by QuantumFX; 14th November 2009 at 14:18. Reason: Fixed broken link

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    451
    It's hard to judge if the jet at the airshow is making a sustained turn or not. Most of the time you get a high ITR before the turn rate is stabilized. This effectively cuts the turn time down be several seconds. The Gripen turn in the above links appears to be sustained. That is to say no violent ITR at the beginning of the turn.

    In this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M-ByZ0pBjQ the MiG-29 enters the turn(2:59) at high speed, and exits the turn(3:13) at a much lower speed. In other words, the turn executed by the MiG-29 in this vid is not a sustained turn. The Su-27 does a much better job at maintaining its speed during the turn later in the film(5:07 - 5:22).

    This is my highly unscientific opinion watching the vid. But I think the speed loss for MiG-29 is rather obvious.
    Last edited by robban; 14th November 2009 at 16:18.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    451

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Cola1973 View Post
    Not really.
    Mig29 in video you posted earlier does clean 15sec turn without rolling in and that doesn't take 3 seconds either, but under 1, usually.

    As for that Rafale video, I've sent PM to arthuro and I hope he still got it somewhere.
    I think this is the Rafale video that you mentioned.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJqx9X85AAQ
    However, it takes 14 sec for Rafale to complete the turn, and the camera view is changed from in-cockpit to external and back, so exact timing cannot be determined.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,207
    Quote Originally Posted by robban View Post
    Always good to see Viggen driving backwards.

    Great video of F16 and great flying by US pilot. It's funny how even after 40 years of service, it's still the best flying machine in US inventory.
    Just check demo time of over 12 minutes in the air.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly01 View Post
    I think this is the Rafale video that you mentioned.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJqx9X85AAQ
    However, it takes 14 sec for Rafale to complete the turn, and the camera view is changed from in-cockpit to external and back, so exact timing cannot be determined.
    Yes, that's the film. Thx.
    I mean, just look at the turn rate at about 6:05. It looks as if taken from computer game. The turn in film lasts for 14 sec indeed, but it's obvious the film has been edited.
    It seems, the Rafale sustained angular speed of over 30°/sec in this film and at high speed/loading, at that.
    Cheers, Cola

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    uk, newcastle
    Posts
    4,545
    The J10 is now officially used by the August 1st display team of the PLAAF. Just wait till they next display and we will get a real good idea of what the J10 is capable of.
    the true power of religion does not lie with the deity, it lies with the priests.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Cola1973 View Post
    Great video of F16 and great flying by US pilot. It's funny how even after 40 years of service, it's still the best flying machine in US inventory.
    F-22?

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    5,117
    [quote=Cola]Great video of F16 and great flying by US pilot. It's funny how even after 40 years of service
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    US/EU/RU
    Posts
    4,726
    Quote Originally Posted by plawolf View Post
    The J10 is now officially used by the August 1st display team of the PLAAF. Just wait till they next display and we will get a real good idea of what the J10 is capable of.
    Here with the old toys:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JHB3T26yOk

    Looking fwd to their performance with the J-10!

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705
    Personally, I don't think the Gripen NG odds are so good for the MMRCA Contest. That said, in Weapons, Avionics, and Serviceability. The Gripen wins hands down. Of course Pakistani J-10's could be equipped with Western Systems. Which, would greatly close the gap. Clearly, Indian needs to move more quickly toward 5th Generation Types in my opinion. That is if it wants to maintain Air Superiority over the PLAAF.
    F-35 Lightning II

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    uk, newcastle
    Posts
    4,545
    For the Gripen to win 'hands down', one would assume you know both sets of stats to be able to reach such a conclusion. Care to share this never before heard of source of classified data or are you taking a wild unsubstantiated guess as usual?

    'Maintain'? When did the IAF enjoy air superiority over the PLAAF to start with?

    Besides, the PLAAF second in command just went on record that the Chinese 4th gen (5th gen equivalent) will have its first flight 'very soon', so the IAF is hardly in any position to gain any ground in the years to come assuming the best outcomes with the PAKAF.

    Home built V imported will also effectively guarantee that the PLAAF can field many more 5th gens then the IAF for the same money, and India is hardly in any position to try and outspend China on defense.

    India has neither the economic might nor the technological industrial base to try to match let alone surpass China militarily.

    The difference between India and China is not dissimilar to that between China and the US. Only China has the sense to realise who is stronger and chooses to avoid mounting a direct military challenge to the US while building up its economy and industrial strength.

    For India to try starting an arms race with China now or in the near future will be extremely unwise.
    the true power of religion does not lie with the deity, it lies with the priests.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    451
    Gripen NG XMLU.

    Saabs answer to the J-10B. No, not really. It's just for fun folks!

    Last edited by robban; 15th November 2009 at 19:59.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by robban View Post
    Gripen NG XMLU.

    Saabs answer to the J-10B. No, not really. It's just for fun folks!


    Where do you fit the internal weapons?
    F-35 Lightning II

  22. #52
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by robban View Post
    It's hard to judge if the jet at the airshow is making a sustained turn or not. Most of the time you get a high ITR before the turn rate is stabilized. This effectively cuts the turn time down be several seconds. The Gripen turn in the above links appears to be sustained. That is to say no violent ITR at the beginning of the turn.

    In this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M-ByZ0pBjQ the MiG-29 enters the turn(2:59) at high speed, and exits the turn(3:13) at a much lower speed. In other words, the turn executed by the MiG-29 in this vid is not a sustained turn. The Su-27 does a much better job at maintaining its speed during the turn later in the film(5:07 - 5:22). This is my highly unscientific opinion watching the vid. But I think the speed loss for MiG-29 is rather obvious.
    I think you make a good point.

    At airshows turns are usually of the min radius or max rate variety where an impressive looking turn is being performed at the expense of airspeed or altitude. Of the clips pointed out so far in this thread the turn performed by the Gripen looks closest to being a proper sustained level turn, unlike the turn performed by the MiG-29 for instance which is completed more quickly and within a tighter radius but clearly bleeds off a lot more airspeed in the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuantumFX View Post

    Yeah off-course can't compare to the Su-27 and MiG-29. Its just every time I see those two turning I go - I mean minimum radius turns. Not the TVC aided tumbling jobs.
    I agree, the Su-37 displays flown by Evgeny Frolov in the 90's where impressive not just for the post stall manoeuvres performed, but also in terms of conventional turn performance. Even so I would say that today you would be hard pressed better the Typhoon in that respect.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPOOldlZymw (1:57 - 2:17)

    Test pilot John Turner taking Eurofighter DA5 from a low speed high alpha pass into one of the tightest turns I've ever seen performed by a jet fighter, but more impressive is the fact that it's actually still accelerating from 100 to 200 kts in this turn !

    Quote Originally Posted by robban View Post
    Some more vids with 360 turns.
    No Typhoon on your list robban ?

    I must remedy that !

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6ekN3xHApE (3:12-3:27)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3PQjn2ibqw (0:54-1:07) in full reheat, but cuts just short of the full 360° & (2:10-2:28) in partial reheat/dry power.
    Last edited by bloodshot; 15th November 2009 at 03:11.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    965

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by bloodshot View Post
    I've seen that. I didn't add that one because it was a prototype....

    Heres the Typhoon turn with 1 drop tank. 4:10 onwards

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYz9EsFYv8c

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Scooter View Post
    Where do you fit the internal weapons?
    I've wondered that too. I'm guessing the semi-stealth means the use of external weapons. It's such as small aicraft, but maybe it's possible to squeeze an METEOR or two in somewhere?

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,042
    Quote Originally Posted by plawolf View Post
    For the Gripen to win 'hands down', one would assume you know both sets of stats to be able to reach such a conclusion. Care to share this never before heard of source of classified data or are you taking a wild unsubstantiated guess as usual?
    Well I have no idea what the serviceability of the J10 is, but there's no comparison between the avionics, and until it gets ramjet powered AAMs, the Gripen has better weapons too.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    5,117
    It is not an unsubstantiated guess when Scooter claim Gripen Serviceability, it is documented it's the best, so even if not impossible, it will take alot for J-10 to surpass and take the throne.
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705
    Quote Originally Posted by robban View Post
    I've wondered that too. I'm guessing the semi-stealth means the use of external weapons. It's such as small aicraft, but maybe it's possible to squeeze an METEOR or two in somewhere?

    Well, such a design could carry four Amraams/Metors semi-recessed like a Typhoon, Tomcat, or Phantom II. Which, would greatly reduce drag and not compromise the RCS to much. (the latter is a assumption on my part)
    F-35 Lightning II

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    9,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Showtime 100 View Post
    I think u need this video to prove better. Short take off and steep climb immediately.. I am waiting for what type of combat plane can match that performaces..
    All three of these Eagles did.

    Oh, here's another:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klkz5Ayrpnw

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxAE_viqpDs&NR=1


    This one here is one of the best but it's in dinosaur Real format:

    http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...r_050303n.html

    (First flight video. High performance F110 powered take off.)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F15-Take-off-746409.jpg 
Views:	154 
Size:	170.1 KB 
ID:	178915   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F-15_Eagle_Short_Takeoff_In_Afterburner.jpg 
Views:	158 
Size:	25.4 KB 
ID:	178916   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F-15_takeoff.jpg 
Views:	137 
Size:	36.5 KB 
ID:	178917  
    Last edited by sferrin; 16th November 2009 at 03:43.
    “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” - George Bernard Shaw

    flag@whitehouse.gov

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,045
    Quote Originally Posted by sferrin View Post
    Thanks for pointing out.. Nice take off but looks like it needed a longer run way than J-10 to achieve that take off.

    J-10 is sharp and quick and remember its a single engine fighter although its lighter than Eagle..

    I have no doubt Typhoon and Rafale able to ahieve same as J-10.
    Take control of yrself and u will control the world!

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    5,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Scooter View Post
    Well, such a design could carry four Amraams/Metors semi-recessed like a Typhoon, Tomcat, or Phantom II. Which, would greatly reduce drag and not compromise the RCS to much. (the latter is a assumption on my part)
    No, it won't make a notable difference.
    There are two sources for drag, weight and frontal cross section.

    Lets say a Gripen NG weighs 8.500 kg with fuel, and add 4 missiles*152 kg=~600 kg worth of missiles, it will then have to carry ~ 7% more weight that translate into drag.

    Then we have the extra frontal cross section from 4 missiles with a radius of 9 cm each, but i don't know the frontal cross section on Gripen, or any other aircraft for that matter, so i can't tell how much of a difference, but it will be less then the weight induced.

    Is there any info available as to frontal cross section on various aircraft ?

    With regards to RCS, external missiles will create reflexes in all directions when illuminated from below, semi or not.
    Last edited by obligatory; 16th November 2009 at 06:45.
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

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