Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • obligatory
    Senior Member
    • Oct 2008
    • 7043

    "I can only claim the first six words." = I still haven't lost a dogfight

    Comment

    • eagle
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jan 2000
      • 2372

      Originally posted by FBW View Post
      Yes, I used that as the standard too, did you use the update or original? Or was my math wrong?
      The version is dated June 15, 2003 (change 8).
      Point is though the 9600 kg figure is with CFTs. Without is probably a better comparison.

      All of this doesn't change the fact that the Gripen is underpowered compared to its peers. The F-16C-50 is give or take 14% heavier and is 32-34% more powerful, depending on engine. I certainly hope SAAB manages to bring the weight down below 8 tons.
      How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
      Yngwie Malmsteen

      Comment

      • velociraptor
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Sep 2009
        • 23

        Hmm... Well, personally I think it will take a fair bit of time before we get any correct numbers regarding the weight of Gripen E... I my guess is when we do get it, it will be a fair bit under 8 000 Kg. What thought do you folks have about the added length of the plane btw..? I mean since you're obviously basing a lot of your discussion on the numbers in the SAAB Gripen E pdf.. lenght of the plane growing by 1.1m, while width is just growing 0.2m, Shouldn't that merit a fair bit of speculation?.. & something I find it a bit funny in the discussions here lately, is the pretty much constant focus on the weaker sides of the plane, while I haven't seen anyone bringing up it's strong sides, at least not in a very long time. Things like sortie rate, operational tempo, turnaround times, logistical footprint, fighter-link technology, HMI etc. Things that are rather huge factors in actual war-fighting capabilities.. Is it just that none of you come across anything about that, or why..?

        Comment

        • Loke
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jun 2008
          • 3302

          Originally posted by eagle View Post
          The version is dated June 15, 2003 (change 8).
          Point is though the 9600 kg figure is with CFTs. Without is probably a better comparison.

          All of this doesn't change the fact that the Gripen is underpowered compared to its peers. The F-16C-50 is give or take 14% heavier and is 32-34% more powerful, depending on engine. I certainly hope SAAB manages to bring the weight down below 8 tons.
          Compared to what peers? Compared to the C/D the increase in thrust should more than balance the increase in weight:

          http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...36#post2291336

          Comment

          • Loke
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jun 2008
            • 3302

            Originally posted by velociraptor View Post
            Hmm... Well, personally I think it will take a fair bit of time before we get any correct numbers regarding the weight of Gripen E... I my guess is when we do get it, it will be a fair bit under 8 000 Kg. What thought do you folks have about the added length of the plane btw..? I mean since you're obviously basing a lot of your discussion on the numbers in the SAAB Gripen E pdf.. lenght of the plane growing by 1.1m, while width is just growing 0.2m, Shouldn't that merit a fair bit of speculation?.. & something I find it a bit funny in the discussions here lately, is the pretty much constant focus on the weaker sides of the plane, while I haven't seen anyone bringing up it's strong sides, at least not in a very long time. Things like sortie rate, operational tempo, turnaround times, logistical footprint, fighter-link technology, HMI etc. Things that are rather huge factors in actual war-fighting capabilities.. Is it just that none of you come across anything about that, or why..?
            I am not so sure it will be far below 8000kg -- it is physically bigger and contains various new components that are either new or heavier than the old; a much heavier radar, heavier engine, new IRST, etc.)

            Comment

            • hopsalot
              Senior Member
              • Aug 2012
              • 3166

              Originally posted by velociraptor View Post
              Hmm... Well, personally I think it will take a fair bit of time before we get any correct numbers regarding the weight of Gripen E... I my guess is when we do get it, it will be a fair bit under 8 000 Kg.
              Certainly final numbers won't be available for a while, but given how generally optimistic Saab's marketers have proven to be I don't see any reason to think the Gripen E will be lighter than 8,000kg. It is a bigger plane with more avionics, etc.


              What thought do you folks have about the added length of the plane btw..? I mean since you're obviously basing a lot of your discussion on the numbers in the SAAB Gripen E pdf.. lenght of the plane growing by 1.1m, while width is just growing 0.2m, Shouldn't that merit a fair bit of speculation?.. & something I find it a bit funny in the discussions here lately, is the pretty much constant focus on the weaker sides of the plane, while I haven't seen anyone bringing up it's strong sides, at least not in a very long time. Things like sortie rate, operational tempo, turnaround times, logistical footprint, fighter-link technology, HMI etc. Things that are rather huge factors in actual war-fighting capabilities.. Is it just that none of you come across anything about that, or why..?
              I don't think anyone here is arguing that the Gripen NG won't have some nice capabilities. The point people here are trying to make is that it is also not without significant limitations. There are people who have tried to promote the idea that it is some kind of wonder plane that can do everything its bigger cousins can do while costing less, etc. There are fundamental limitations that come into play when you build a fighter in the Gripen's size class.

              If you want to fly short distances and don't need to carry heavy loads then the Gripen NG is a perfectly credible performer. Very lightly loaded a Gripen NG will offer solid aerodynamic performance and will likely be competitive with other 4th generation fighters. The problem is that with such a small aircraft its performance will degrade very rapidly as its load increases.

              Its cost advantage also isn't nearly as large as people claim it is. Saab likes to make cost per flight hour comparisons that amount to little more than a comparison of fuel consumption, a metric that will make a Gripen look good. The problem is that manning, infrastructure, avionics, etc, drive a huge part of an air force's operating costs and the Gripen doesn't have much of an advantage there. Once all things are considered the Gripen remains cheaper than its competitors, but the advantage is incremental. Most forces have opted for the larger more capable airframes despite the cost increase.

              Comment

              • hopsalot
                Senior Member
                • Aug 2012
                • 3166

                Originally posted by Loke View Post
                Compared to what peers? Compared to the C/D the increase in thrust should more than balance the increase in weight:

                http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...36#post2291336
                Yes, but as also shown in that comparison the Gripen already had one of the lowest power to weight ratios of any modern fighter. The Gripen NG's power to weight ratio may be slightly better than the Gripen C's, but that just puts it in second to last place.

                The same physics apply in Sweden as everywhere else. The Gripen NG has marginal power to weight to start with and weapons/pods weight more and have greater drag relative to its small size than they do for larger jets.

                Comment

                • Rii
                  Rii
                  Senior Member
                  • Oct 2010
                  • 3449

                  Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                  "I can only claim the first six words." = I still haven't lost a dogfight
                  To be fair, I haven't lost a dogfight to a US aircraft either.

                  In any case not having lost a dogfight to a US fighter (but not having faced the F-22) is not exactly a remarkable achievement. With the exception of the F-22 all US fighters have been thoroughly outclassed in ACM performance by everything else from everyone else for some time now -- hence the penchant for US fanboys to downplay the significance of ACM whilst emphasizing other aspects of combat in which they fare rather better.

                  The other recent discussion about engine power, thrust-to-weight ratios and supercruise or lack thereof is also amusing in terms of how it conforms to national stereotypes. With respect to cars, Americans like and build rumbling grunt machines, while Europeans like and build elegant sedans, and these characteristics seem to carry over to the aviation arena as well. Hence my earlier line about the distinction between a flying machine (Gripen) and a machine that happens to fly (F-35). Remember that line about the F-4 Phantom -- that with enough thrust even a brick will fly? Given Japanese cultural characteristics and auto industry, I'm looking forward to what they bring to the table with a truly indigenous design in F-3.
                  Last edited by Rii; 13th February 2016, 15:49.

                  Comment

                  • alexz
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 325

                    In future air to air combat, with everyone having access to advanced EW/ECM equipments, a "first look first kill" is not always guaranteed. First few bvr shots could be defeated by advanced ECM equipments (same is true for the adversary against the gripen e/f ecm).

                    This is why usaf is looking at options to carry as much aam as possible on F-15 and f-16s on air superiority missions.

                    If the gripen would only be capable of a decent CAP range with only 2 bvr and 2 wvr missiles, it would be a handicap against near peer adversaries that could carry more.

                    Comment

                    • Spyhawk
                      Rank 42 Registered User
                      • Dec 2011
                      • 175

                      Originally posted by velociraptor View Post
                      something I find it a bit funny in the discussions here lately, is the pretty much constant focus on the weaker sides of the plane, while I haven't seen anyone bringing up it's strong sides, at least not in a very long time. Things like sortie rate, operational tempo, turnaround times, logistical footprint, fighter-link technology, HMI etc. Things that are rather huge factors in actual war-fighting capabilities.. Is it just that none of you come across anything about that, or why..?
                      Probably because western countries tend to fight wars where they have the upper hand. By contrast, Gripen has been designed in they first place to fight a bigger, more powerful opponent. Contributors in this thread might have a really different mindset as to what "war" actually is.

                      Originally posted by Rii View Post
                      The other recent discussion about engine power, thrust-to-weight ratios and supercruise or lack thereof is also amusing in terms of how it conforms to national stereotypes. With respect to cars, Americans like and build rumbling grunt machines, while Europeans like and build elegant sedans, and these characteristics seem to carry over to the aviation arena as well. Hence my earlier line about the distinction between a flying machine (Gripen) and a machine that happens to fly (F-35). Remember that line about the F-4 Phantom -- that with enough thrust even a brick will fly? Given Japanese cultural characteristics and auto industry, I'm looking forward to what they bring to the table with a truly indigenous design in F-3.
                      This is one of the most refreshing post I read in this thread for a while. Don't really know why I feel that way, but thank you!
                      Last edited by Spyhawk; 13th February 2016, 16:42.

                      Comment

                      • swerve
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jun 2005
                        • 13610

                        Originally posted by Loke View Post
                        I am not so sure it will be far below 8000kg -- it is physically bigger and contains various new components that are either new or heavier than the old; a much heavier radar, heavier engine, new IRST, etc.)
                        The engine's about 55kg heavier, if Wiki's right, & that's consistent with the thrust & T/W ratio on the GE datasheet. The radar's 65 kg heavier, according to the manufacturers.
                        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                        Justinian

                        Comment

                        • hopsalot
                          Senior Member
                          • Aug 2012
                          • 3166

                          Originally posted by Spyhawk View Post
                          Probably because western countries tend to fight wars where they have the upper hand. By contrast, Gripen has been designed in they first place to fight a bigger, more powerful opponent. Contributors in this thread might have a really different mindset as to what "war" actually is.
                          One might also note that the designers of the other Western designs have a great deal of experience with modern air wars and presumably learned a few things along the way.


                          This is one of the most refreshing post I read in this thread for a while. Don't really know why I feel that way, but thank you!
                          Maybe you find shallow regurgitation of childish stereotypes refreshing? Americans like rumbling machines? Europeans like elegant sedans? Is this what passes for insight around here?

                          Comment

                          • Spyhawk
                            Rank 42 Registered User
                            • Dec 2011
                            • 175

                            Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                            Maybe you find shallow regurgitation of childish stereotypes refreshing? Americans like rumbling machines? Europeans like elegant sedans? Is this what passes for insight around here?
                            No, but probably because that comment (while actually being somewhat a stereotype itself) actually remember us that we often overlook something trivial, as we're all more or less see the world only through our own tiny lenses and blindspot?

                            Comment

                            • Urban
                              Rank 4 Registered User
                              • Jan 2015
                              • 121

                              Measuring T/W values without knowing the drag of the aircraft is useless. Gripen has the lowest drag of all aircrafts hands down, Hence the correlations to a lower t/w. Nothing strange here move on.

                              Comment

                              • Ozair
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Oct 2015
                                • 822

                                Originally posted by Urban View Post
                                Measuring T/W values without knowing the drag of the aircraft is useless. Gripen has the lowest drag of all aircrafts hands down, Hence the correlations to a lower t/w. Nothing strange here move on.
                                So in line your above comment without knowing the drag of the other aircraft you then claim Gripen has the lowest drag...

                                Comment

                                • obligatory
                                  Senior Member
                                  • Oct 2008
                                  • 7043

                                  Originally posted by Ozair View Post
                                  So in line your above comment without knowing the drag of the other aircraft you then claim Gripen has the lowest drag...
                                  gripen has better area distribution and lower cross section, as compared to any of its competitors, any way you cut it,
                                  gripen E takes it another notch

                                  Comment

                                  • hopsalot
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Aug 2012
                                    • 3166

                                    Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                                    gripen has better area distribution and lower cross section, as compared to any of its competitors, any way you cut it,
                                    gripen E takes it another notch
                                    Gripen E has a better area distribution and lower cross section than Gripen C?

                                    Do I even need to ask you for a source?

                                    Comment

                                    • Loke
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2008
                                      • 3302

                                      Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                                      Yes, but as also shown in that comparison the Gripen already had one of the lowest power to weight ratios of any modern fighter. The Gripen NG's power to weight ratio may be slightly better than the Gripen C's, but that just puts it in second to last place.
                                      .
                                      If the Gripen C/D is under-powered, I am sure you can dig up several links to support that?

                                      Theoretical values is one thing; real-world performance is something different. I am looking forward to your real-world supporting evidence of Gripen C/D being under-powered.

                                      Comment

                                      • Loke
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2008
                                        • 3302

                                        Originally posted by alexz View Post
                                        In future air to air combat, with everyone having access to advanced EW/ECM equipments, a "first look first kill" is not always guaranteed. First few bvr shots could be defeated by advanced ECM equipments (same is true for the adversary against the gripen e/f ecm).

                                        This is why usaf is looking at options to carry as much aam as possible on F-15 and f-16s on air superiority missions.

                                        If the gripen would only be capable of a decent CAP range with only 2 bvr and 2 wvr missiles, it would be a handicap against near peer adversaries that could carry more.
                                        Indeed -- this is why the F-35, which is being built for future high-threat environments, will be able to carry a large number of missiles internally -- oh, wait...

                                        Comment

                                        • Loke
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jun 2008
                                          • 3302

                                          An "old" story, however some readers may find it interesting:

                                          http://flightlog.seven-alpha.com/gripen.html

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X