Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • hopsalot
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2012
    • 3166

    Originally posted by Loke View Post
    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...

    12 isn't enough?

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...issile-382670/

    Comment

    • Ozair
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Oct 2015
      • 822

      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
      Without looking at any stats it is required to carry all ordnance externally.

      Stating something has low drag means nothing without looking at the scenario it must prosecute. We have great info on how much the F-16 is impacted by external stores. I would like to see similar info on the Gripen before such claims are taken as truth...

      Comment

      • obligatory
        Senior Member
        • Oct 2008
        • 7043

        i refer to standard A2A loadout unless stated otherwise,
        perhaps you think a 2 dm in diameter missile, at the center of the a/c, is going to shift area distribution in favor of F-35,
        is that the case here ?
        Last edited by obligatory; 14th February 2016, 00:59.

        Comment

        • eagle
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jan 2000
          • 2369

          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..?
          Not at all. Those capabilities are exactly the reason I think the Gripen is the ideal fighter for Switzerland, and many other air forces as well. If you have a small air force, things like sortie rate are much more important than thrust to weight ratio. Esp. if the Gripen is airborne faster.
          Still, more thrust never hurts (everything else being equal).

          Originally posted by Loke View Post
          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.
          Come on, TWR is very much a real thing. The question whether the Gripen is underpowered or not isn't a simple yes or no question. Does it fulfill the requirements of the Swedish AF? If it does and I'm pretty sure it does, it certainly isn't underpowered per se. But in comparison to other jets it simply is underpowered.
          Have you ever seen an EF Typhoon going vertical? Compare that to a Gripen and you see what I mean. Again, depending on individual requirements, that's more or less important. But as I said, more thrust would be nice in any case.
          How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
          Yngwie Malmsteen

          Comment

          • eagle
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2000
            • 2369

            Originally posted by Ozair View Post
            Without looking at any stats it is required to carry all ordnance externally.

            Stating something has low drag means nothing without looking at the scenario it must prosecute. We have great info on how much the F-16 is impacted by external stores. I would like to see similar info on the Gripen before such claims are taken as truth...
            Seeing as Gripen is able to supercruise with much worse TWR than pretty much everyone else, should give a hint about drag.
            Also, it flies never without pylons, so they probably are included in basic clean airframe drag and area ruling of the airframe. Adding a couple of A/A missiles doesn't increase drag much. One AMRAAMs has a drag index of 4 on the Viper f.e.
            How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
            Yngwie Malmsteen

            Comment

            • Ozair
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Oct 2015
              • 822

              Originally posted by obligatory View Post
              i refer to standard A2A loadout unless stated otherwise,
              perhaps you think a 2 dm in diameter missile, at the center of the a/c, is going to shift area distribution in favor of F-35,
              is that the case here ?
              Nothing to do with F-35 and everything to do with facts around claims. What for instance is a standard A2A loadout, 2 aams or 4 or 6?

              Comment

              • Ozair
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Oct 2015
                • 822

                Originally posted by eagle View Post
                Seeing as Gripen is able to supercruise with much worse TWR than pretty much everyone else, should give a hint about drag.
                Also, it flies never without pylons, so they probably are included in basic clean airframe drag and area ruling of the airframe. Adding a couple of A/A missiles doesn't increase drag much. One AMRAAMs has a drag index of 4 on the Viper f.e.
                The Gripen supercruised either clean or only with wingtip aams, which we know from F-16\18 contributes positively to reducing drag and the F-16 drag baseline are always made with a clean airframe plus two aams on the wingtips, as is F-18. Not sure why Gripen would be any different.

                One AIM-120 has a drag index of 4, but when on a pylon has the pylon drag, which from memory is another 4. Add to that a good chance Gripen c\e will always fly with a drop tank or three and then we get to what is a more realistic configuration.

                Comment

                • MSphere
                  Senior Member
                  • Feb 2010
                  • 8983

                  Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                  12 isn't enough?
                  You mean 12 non-existing missiles?

                  Comment

                  • hopsalot
                    Senior Member
                    • Aug 2012
                    • 3166

                    Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                    You mean 12 non-existing missiles?
                    Those specific ones may not... but missiles along those lines are under development.

                    Comment

                    • Urban
                      Rank 4 Registered User
                      • Jan 2015
                      • 121

                      Originally posted by Ozair View Post
                      The Gripen supercruised either clean or only with wingtip aams, which we know from F-16\18 contributes positively to reducing drag and the F-16 drag baseline are always made with a clean airframe plus two aams on the wingtips, as is F-18. Not sure why Gripen would be any different.

                      One AIM-120 has a drag index of 4, but when on a pylon has the pylon drag, which from memory is another 4. Add to that a good chance Gripen c\e will always fly with a drop tank or three and then we get to what is a more realistic configuration.

                      Realistic....
                      Gripen c's most common config is with one or two drop tanks. In Gripen E, one drop tank is built inside the aircraft. So technically Gripen E will run fine without drop tanks, saving it from the drag created from that one used when flying with the c version.
                      So, not only does that built in fuel save up pylon space it also lower the total drag.
                      Drop tanks can be dropped you know. Remember @14ton Gripen E has 23% stronger engine then gripen c.
                      Last edited by Urban; 14th February 2016, 09:16.

                      Comment

                      • MSphere
                        Senior Member
                        • Feb 2010
                        • 8983

                        Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                        Those specific ones may not... but missiles along those lines are under development.
                        CUDA is dead.. SACM is not even scheduled as of yet. Your posts about 12 missiles are pure fantasy as we speak..

                        Comment

                        • garryA
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Dec 2015
                          • 1120

                          Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                          CUDA is dead.. SACM is not even scheduled as of yet. Your posts about 12 missiles are pure fantasy as we speak..
                          I have to disagree with this
                          http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec...7671453398070/
                          http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...-research.html

                          Comment

                          • MSphere
                            Senior Member
                            • Feb 2010
                            • 8983

                            Nope.. That is for SACM-T - means research of enabling technologies for future weapons..
                            An official program for a resulting missile has not been scheduled yet. Unless you can give me its name and rough time plan..

                            Comment

                            • obligatory
                              Senior Member
                              • Oct 2008
                              • 7043

                              take a good look at these pics, tiny rockets ain't the way to replace meteor, or even amraam.

                              http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...42#post1961142

                              Comment

                              • garryA
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Dec 2015
                                • 1120

                                Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                Nope.. That is for SACM-T - means research of enabling technologies for future weapons..
                                An official program for a resulting missile has not been scheduled yet. Unless you can give me its name and rough time plan..
                                isnt it not exactly the same as original YF-22 , X-32/35 , YAIM-120A program ?
                                Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                                take a good look at these pics, tiny rockets ain't the way to replace meteor, or even amraam.

                                http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...42#post1961142
                                I dont think they can replace Meteor , but amraam ( early version ) or AIM-9 could be a possibility , didnt they recently create gel based soid rocket fuel that can be throtte ? A load out like 3 Meteor or 4 AIM-120D + 4 mini SACM sound not too bad
                                Last edited by garryA; 14th February 2016, 13:38.

                                Comment

                                • hopsalot
                                  Senior Member
                                  • Aug 2012
                                  • 3166

                                  Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                  Nope.. That is for SACM-T - means research of enabling technologies for future weapons..
                                  An official program for a resulting missile has not been scheduled yet. Unless you can give me its name and rough time plan..
                                  The, point, which once again seems to be eluding you... is that the Pentagon has made it clear that this is a class of weapon it wants to add to its arsenal. This shows both that the Pentagon's planners see a need for increased missile loadouts, and that the F-35 will ultimately end up capable of carrying 12 BVR missiles.

                                  Comment

                                  • obligatory
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Oct 2008
                                    • 7043

                                    yes, an aim-9 equivalent, but then F-35 lost the chance of first shot,
                                    it doesnt run well, it doesnt turn well... i'd rather stick to those 4 amraams if cuda look-alike is my only other option.

                                    For UK its pretty straight forward: external meteor,
                                    and US will eventually make a successor to amraam
                                    Last edited by obligatory; 14th February 2016, 14:12.

                                    Comment

                                    • hopsalot
                                      Senior Member
                                      • Aug 2012
                                      • 3166

                                      Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                                      take a good look at these pics, tiny rockets ain't the way to replace meteor, or even amraam.

                                      http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...42#post1961142
                                      Actually, per the information available on CUDA the concept calls for a missile that out-ranges AMRAAM.

                                      The company claims the Cuda will be a low cost weapon that will support "360 coverage", expand beyond visual range engagement zones and improve within visual range no-escape zones. It will also have extremely high-g maneuverability, Lockheed claims.
                                      https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...issile-382670/

                                      This is actually quite plausible when you consider how much of the AMRAAM's volume and non-propellant mass is in its seeker, fuze, guidance section, and warhead... all areas that can be reduced to almost nothing in a CUDA-like missile.

                                      CUDA may not out-range Meteor, but given that it would be carried by an F-35 it wouldn't need to to be effective.

                                      Besides, the two missile concepts don't need to be either-or decisions. An F-35 could carry two Meteors (on the bay doors) and 4 CUDA missiles per bay... total loadout of 10 AAMs with two long-range missiles and 8x medium to short range missiles.

                                      Comment

                                      • hopsalot
                                        Senior Member
                                        • Aug 2012
                                        • 3166

                                        Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                                        yes, an aim-9 equivalent, but then F-35 lost the chance of first shot,
                                        it doesnt run well, it doesnt turn well... i'd rather stick to those 4 amraams if cuda look-alike is my only other option.

                                        For UK its pretty straight forward: external meteor,
                                        and US will eventually make a successor to amraam
                                        It would be amazing if people around here took the time to do the most basic research before posting...

                                        Read the link I already posted twice in this thread. This is a missile that would both out-range an AMRAAM and out maneuver an Aim-9x, with the ability to achieve 360 degree coverage.

                                        Between missiles like this and the coming laser weapons the days of dogfighting (and 4th generation fighters...) are over.

                                        Comment

                                        • Nicolas10
                                          Senior Member
                                          • May 2005
                                          • 4523

                                          Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                                          Read the link I already posted twice in this thread. This is a missile that would both out-range an AMRAAM and out maneuver an Aim-9x, with the ability to achieve 360 degree coverage.
                                          So did the laws of physics change since the Mica was too small to have the same range than an AMRAAM-C?

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X