Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Spyhawk
    Rank 42 Registered User
    • Dec 2011
    • 175

    Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
    Yes, but the leaked report also scored the proposed Gripen NG and it was still considered inadequate.

    See page 12 and on : http://kovy.free.fr/temp/rafale/pdf/12332.pdf
    I find it funny (or actually sad) that some still widely ignore the credibility factor applied to the future versions.
    The effectiveness score obtained by improvements has been corrected by a credibility factor which was a function of the block upgrade readiness level.
    There is a chart somewhere showing that Gripen MS21 got a 0.2 factor, while Rafale F3 was pondered with a 0.7-0.8 factor (cannot find it right away, as I don't remember in which document that one was published and the posted picture seems offline now). Gripen got the biggest delta despite having the lowest credibility factor. Just do the math. Granted, media didn't really look on that tiny details that does all the difference.
    Last edited by Spyhawk; 9th February 2016, 14:10.

    Comment

    • obligatory
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2008
      • 7043

      Originally posted by MSphere View Post
      Gripen will lack mostly in supersonic range because it's tiny and you can't hang wet bags on it if you want to go over M1.0.
      But we have learned that the F-35's range at M1.2 is 150 miles only.. for whatever reasons.. that ain't considerably better than Gripen NG, methinks.. despite the aircraft being twice as heavy and large..
      i beg to differ, here is time in static benchmark, these differences in time seen as percentage will remain at alt.
      factor in drop in thrust/fuel consumption, climb, fuel reserve, etc, and it wont be all that different in flight.
      F-22 still makes it on par in range due to higher speed, but it does not better gripen NG

      F22 Internal Fuel ~18448 lbs
      (2 x F119)
      55000 lbs Mil thrust @ 0.7 lb/lb.hr~0.48~29 min

      GRIPEN NG Internal fuel ~7100 lbs
      (1xF414)
      ~15000 lbs Mil thrust @ 0,7 lb/lb.hr~0.68~41 min
      Attached Files
      Last edited by obligatory; 9th February 2016, 23:03.

      Comment

      • JakobS
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Aug 2015
        • 155

        Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
        The shock and horror at the limited range of the Gripen NG when tested by Switzerland does seem to be misplaced, given that Gripen E will carry about 40% more fuel than the NG tested. In a way the test demonstrated that Gripen C would have inadequate range but so what: SAAB was not offering Gripen C to Switzerland
        In Switzerland points were only given for the capabilities that were operational on the test aircraft in question, that is why both the Gripen Demo and the Typhoon did so bad in Switzerland.

        There is a common misinformation about the swiss evaluation that is being spread on the internet that says that in the first round they evaluated the planes, and then in a second evalutaion the results were adjusted based on theoretical future capabilities. That is wrong. There was two evaluations yes, but both times points were only given for operational capabilities.

        That's why Gripen won despite being the "worst" of the three.
        Last edited by JakobS; 9th February 2016, 18:50.

        Comment

        • Loke
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jun 2008
          • 3302

          Originally posted by JakobS View Post
          In Switzerland points were only given for the capabilities that were operational on the test aircraft in question, that is why both the Gripen Demo and the Typhoon did so bad in Switzerland.

          There is a common misinformation about the swiss evaluation that is being spread on the internet that says that in the first round they evaluated the planes, and then in a second evalutaion the results were adjusted based on theoretical future capabilities. That is wrong. There was two evaluations yes, but both times points were only given for operational capabilities.
          Actually I think you are wrong. Read the second part again...

          Comment

          • Urban
            Rank 4 Registered User
            • Jan 2015
            • 121

            Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
            Yes, but the leaked report also scored the proposed Gripen NG and it was still considered inadequate.

            See page 12 and on : http://kovy.free.fr/temp/rafale/pdf/12332.pdf

            First, that report that everyone think is so special is measured with swiss interests @2008, and where not even done with gripen demo. Second 2008 many crucial parts of gripen E where not chosen.

            AND now the most important part of them all Gripen won in Switzerland (Read that ten times). Gripen got some 550 points EF got 650 and rafale like 730 ...(can't be arsed to find the right figures) Put those figures on a scale off 1000 an then put the economical parts in. Gripen NG where chosen by the government and the minister said it was sufficient.

            Gripen won in Switzerland and Gripen won in Brazil against Rafale Eurofighter Superhornet and will keep winning. Because its a smart fighter.

            Comment

            • hopsalot
              Senior Member
              • Aug 2012
              • 3166

              Originally posted by Urban View Post
              First, that report that everyone think is so special is measured with swiss interests @2008, and where not even done with gripen demo. Second 2008 many crucial parts of gripen E where not chosen.

              AND now the most important part of them all Gripen won in Switzerland (Read that ten times). Gripen got some 550 points EF got 650 and rafale like 730 ...(can't be arsed to find the right figures) Put those figures on a scale off 1000 an then put the economical parts in. Gripen NG where chosen by the government and the minister said it was sufficient.

              Gripen won in Switzerland and Gripen won in Brazil against Rafale Eurofighter Superhornet and will keep winning. Because its a smart fighter.
              Gripen was rated the least capable aircraft in the competition by some margin(generally behind the SwAF's own F-18s), but was ultimately selected because it was the cheapest option... of course the deal was subsequently cancelled in a referendum for costing too much.

              The point people are trying to make to you is that the Gripen is not a wonder plane. It is really only optimized for a very specific set of missions over short distances. It doesn't have the power or fuel to fulfill the role of one of the larger multi-role strikers on the market.

              Comment

              • Halo
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Apr 2009
                • 212

                Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                Gripen was rated the least capable aircraft in the competition by some margin(generally behind the SwAF's own F-18s), but was ultimately selected because it was the cheapest option... of course the deal was subsequently cancelled in a referendum for costing too much.

                The point people are trying to make to you is that the Gripen is not a wonder plane. It is really only optimized for a very specific set of missions over short distances. It doesn't have the power or fuel to fulfill the role of one of the larger multi-role strikers on the market.
                Agreed in principle, but the range and performance of the Gripen E with light AA or recon loads will be in the same League as its bigger brothers.

                Comment

                • MSphere
                  Senior Member
                  • Feb 2010
                  • 8983

                  Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                  Gripen was rated the least capable aircraft in the competition by some margin(generally behind the SwAF's own F-18s), but was ultimately selected because it was the cheapest option... of course the deal was subsequently cancelled in a referendum for costing too much.
                  Gripen-D, not Gripen-E...

                  Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                  The point people are trying to make to you is that the Gripen is not a wonder plane. It is really only optimized for a very specific set of missions over short distances. It doesn't have the power or fuel to fulfill the role of one of the larger multi-role strikers on the market.
                  Gripen is not optimized for a very specific set of missions, quite on the contrary, it's a very universal aircraft.. Even the "over short distances" does not count, in general for Gripen-E.

                  Comment

                  • Spyhawk
                    Rank 42 Registered User
                    • Dec 2011
                    • 175

                    Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                    Gripen was rated the least capable aircraft in the competition by some margin(generally behind the SwAF's own F-18s), but was ultimately selected because it was the cheapest option... of course the deal was subsequently cancelled in a referendum for costing too much.
                    Blablabla... still ignoring readiness credibility factors.
                    Also, summarizing the referendum result to costs only is nothing but a blatant lack of Swiss politics knowledge.

                    Comment

                    • Loke
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jun 2008
                      • 3302

                      STOCKHOLM (AFX) Saab think they see an Indian interest in both land and naval based Gripen aircraft in India, and plans to intensify marketing activities in the country.

                      It says CEO Buskhe Bloomberg News: "there is an interest," citing the news agency Saab chief.

                      On Tuesday, the Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist (S) in an interview with Bloomberg that Sweden and India are in contact with each other on the Gripen.

                      He then stated that the purpose of Prime Minister Stephen Lfvens forthcoming visit to India (this weekend, 13-14 February) is to deepen the Swedish-Indian cooperation on "trade defense"

                      According to Bloomberg will Buskhe to visit India during Prime Minister's visit: it says Saab's press officer in an email to the agency.
                      Google translated from: http://www.di.se/finansiell-informat...2-a77a9d434011

                      Comment

                      • Loke
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jun 2008
                        • 3302

                        “After 21 years, we received in the third quarter the order [from Brazil],” he says, referring to a deal to supply the nation’s air force with 36 Gripens. “The big challenge is basically the technology transfer and the building of the two-seater,” he notes, but adds: “it looks very promising: we have met all the milestones, and received the payments.”

                        There are currently 53 Brazilian engineers working at Saab’s Linkping site, with 25 more to arrive in April. Deliveries of 28 single-seat fighters and eight two-seat examples are scheduled to run between 2019 and 2024.
                        https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-deals-421772/

                        So far it looks good -- it will be interesting if Saab and the partners can keep meeting the milestones moving forward!

                        Comment

                        • Spitfire9
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jul 2008
                          • 2846

                          STOCKHOLM (AFX) Saab think they see an Indian interest in both land and naval based Gripen aircraft in India, and plans to intensify marketing activities in the country.

                          It says CEO Buskhe Bloomberg News: "there is an interest," citing the news agency Saab chief.

                          On Tuesday, the Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist (S) in an interview with Bloomberg that Sweden and India are in contact with each other on the Gripen.

                          He then stated that the purpose of Prime Minister Stephen Lfvens forthcoming visit to India (this weekend, 13-14 February) is to deepen the Swedish-Indian cooperation on "trade defense".
                          Under what conditions would India order Gripen? If Tejas Mk1A is going ahead, why order Gripen?
                          Sum ergo cogito

                          Comment

                          • JakobS
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Aug 2015
                            • 155

                            Originally posted by Loke View Post
                            Actually I think you are wrong. Read the second part again...
                            I was talking about the whole process, not just that one report. The report summaries flying from the middle of 2008. More flying was done after that, and also there were additional specifications that Switzerland and Sweden agreed on for the Gripen E after that.

                            Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                            Gripen was rated the least capable aircraft in the competition by some margin(generally behind the SwAF's own F-18s), but was ultimately selected because it was the cheapest option... of course the deal was subsequently cancelled in a referendum for costing too much.

                            The point people are trying to make to you is that the Gripen is not a wonder plane. It is really only optimized for a very specific set of missions over short distances. It doesn't have the power or fuel to fulfill the role of one of the larger multi-role strikers on the market.
                            Gripen will always be inferior to planes like Rafale and Typhoon, for obvious reasons.

                            The point is that people are using that one swiss report for claiming that Gripen E was inferior to the current f-18s of Switzerland and that it also did not live up to the countries minimum requirements. That is simply not true.
                            Last edited by JakobS; 10th February 2016, 17:28.

                            Comment

                            • Urban
                              Rank 4 Registered User
                              • Jan 2015
                              • 121

                              "Gripen will always be inferior to planes like Rafale and Typhoon, for obvious reasons."


                              I would like to re quote that - Gripen will always be more balanced then rafale and typoon, for many reasons.

                              Gripen E will also have different things that is uniqe for Gripen but are as high technically as both Typhoon and Rafale.
                              Gripen will be inferior in lifting mass amount of weapons yes ! and climbing with dose weapons yes ! BUT lifting massive amount of weapons give of a huge RCS signature anyways... AND climbing fast with that load will make your fuel disappear.

                              Gripen E is balansed ! And have aesa that can shoot people flying along side it on 100km range....with the worlds best Rocket.

                              Comment

                              • Sintra
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Aug 2007
                                • 3851

                                Originally posted by Urban View Post
                                I would like to re quote that - Gripen will always be more balanced then rafale and typoon, for many reasons.
                                If "many reasons" amount to "cost" its a fair assesment, if not, well then no.
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                • obligatory
                                  Senior Member
                                  • Oct 2008
                                  • 7043

                                  gripen E is not inferior to either in terms of range with A2A config,
                                  i'm not entirely sure what "balanced" is, the split avionics suggest faster upgrades & integration at lower cost,
                                  hauling heavy loads over distance will always favor heavier fighters

                                  Comment

                                  • alexz
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Nov 2010
                                    • 325

                                    Gripen performance is only exceptional when being looked through a very small set of variables.

                                    For example why just look at "supercruise" capability for for air superiority missions? Even the supercruise capability is only attainable by the NG on the coldest days of sweedish winter. Could it possibly supercruise in not brazilian tropical climate? Also not said is the dogfighting/maneuverbility of the Gripen with actual fuel load to return to base from that mission range. Would the Gripen dogfight w/o afterburner? Would its theoretical range be moot with afterburner on dogfights?

                                    I have yet to see a Gripen e/f/ng quoted range with max weapons load; available weapons load with maximum fuel; or proof of supercruise in hot climates.

                                    If you compare overall performance of the gripen even with say f-16v, you can see that it is not really a cost effective fighter for the price they are selling those right now.

                                    Comment

                                    • garryA
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Dec 2015
                                      • 1120

                                      Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                                      i beg to differ, here is time in static benchmark, these differences in time seen as percentage will remain at alt.
                                      factor in drop in thrust/fuel consumption, climb, fuel reserve, etc, and it wont be all that different in flight.
                                      F-22 still makes it on par in range due to higher speed, but it does not better gripen NG
                                      It actually varied alot depending alot on their engine design .
                                      And did you took your picture from here :
                                      http://maxgreen.egloos.com/452711 ?
                                      after see this chart , i dont think their comparison is valid

                                      Comment

                                      • obligatory
                                        Senior Member
                                        • Oct 2008
                                        • 7043

                                        @Garry: ahaa! THAT is what "balanced" refer to !
                                        that CAP image is from the norwegian campaign IIRC

                                        @Alex: No, its the C model that only made M1.1 "on a cold day"
                                        SAAB never advertised C as supercruise capable, the demo demonstrated M1.25
                                        the CAP mission obviously include return, but not dogfight
                                        Last edited by obligatory; 11th February 2016, 04:34.

                                        Comment

                                        • maurobaggio
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jul 2008
                                          • 521

                                          Originally posted by Halo View Post
                                          ....??!?!?!??
                                          Instead of asking you please to rephrase it , I guess that your doubt should be the source of this information over EJ200 TVC for the Gripen NG:

                                          'Further Gripen upgrades under consideration by the air force( but not yet contracted out) included passive search and track system( Saab Dynamics IR-OTIS, a Russian stile infra red ball sensor mounted in front of the canopy); a helmet ; and thrust-vectoring ( following a study involving the Eurojet EJ200 engine) since cancelled due to lack of funding.'

                                          Mr. Jergensen, Jan Gunnar. Combat Aircraft, N 02 page 165, March 2003.



                                          Originally posted by Halo View Post
                                          Well, back to the very basics, Gripen A was designed for an environment where it was supposed to meet a huge number of soviet aircraft that had to cross the Baltic. Gripen would operate from many small dispersed bases. Due to the large number of bases and that Gripen would fight a lot closer to home base than the enemy so the need for fuel was't that big. As Urban has enforced, if you start to take on extra size or weight it has to be compensated for that would start a vicious circle, the Gripen was all about breaking this cycle.
                                          Indeed the JAS 39 Gripen A / B had been developed since the early 80s, even during the Cold War, however the first JAS 39A was delivered in 1993, after the end of the Cold War in 1991.

                                          Anyway plans to acquire 204 JAS 39 Gripen A/B/C/D in three batches had been remained even during the 2000's, long time after the end of the Cold War.

                                          Meanwhile the F/A 18 E/F made its first flight in 1995, and the assemble line from F/A 18 C/D has been reset for F/A 18 E/F since 1997.

                                          Only to remember the F/A 18E/F were developed to replace the expensive and high advanced F 14 A/B/C/D Tomcat from US Navy due to the end of the Cold War, as well as the F/A 18A/B/C/D Hornet either.

                                          Anyway Sweden had continued with the Gripen C / D and completely ignored the changing from F/A 18C/D to a new F/A 18E/F post Cold War age, as well as its F414 engine until at least 2003 with the cancellation of the EJ 200 TVC for the new project of the Gripen NG.

                                          As already mentioned here in this thread, if the Gripen C/D could have received the F414 and thus turned into what has been known now as Gripen E still in the 90s.


                                          Originally posted by Halo View Post
                                          Due to these very obvious reasons Gripen A did't need the extra fuel, weapons or a larger engine. In the post 1st Cold war era the number of planes and bases was significantly reduced and the type of missions became wider so there was a need to adjust the design targets if the aircraft.... Designers are not stupid, the do tend to optimize the design.. If you would like to go max afterburner (CH) and or carry heavy loads long distances.... dont go for Gripen A-D and certainly the E/F will never "shine" here either!
                                          After all in 2010 the fleet of JAS 39 C / D Gripen in Sweden were decreased to 100 fighters from 204 that had been ordered until 2003. Almost half of the Gripen fleet has been retired from Royal Sweden Air Force in reason of the cuts in the Military Budget , then part of the Gripens were stored and another part were leased for some countries.


                                          Which would lead to another point: if the Gripen C / D had introduced the F414 engine and the concept of the F/A 18E/F still in the 90s like the Gripen E today, the number of JAS 39 Gripen built for Sweden could have been lower than the original 204 and it would saved financial resources from Sweden too.

                                          The Gripen E will enter into production in 2018, almost 21 years after the F / A 18 E / F, and now Sweden will acquire 60 Gripen and to replace 100 Gripen C/D.

                                          I have been keeping those doubts for years, but it could be resumed in this question: if the engine F 414 does wonders for the Gripen NG today, why have waited 21 years to implement this?

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X