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
  • eagle
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2000
    • 2362

    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.
    I was wrong about Gripen pylons, I was thinking the aircraft always flies with them so they would have been included in a "clean" airframe. Apparently, that's not true.

    Anyhow, the Gripen still manages to supercruise. Even if it's only a clean configuration, it still manages to do so with less thrust than anyone else. Hence it must have pretty low drag at least in the transsonic regime.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

    Comment

    • obligatory
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2008
      • 7043

      just leave it, confused analogies got nothing to do with gripen,
      we can bring it up in a few years time if UK declare it will integrate meteor, or will opt out

      Comment

      • Ozair
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Oct 2015
        • 821

        Originally posted by eagle View Post
        I was wrong about Gripen pylons, I was thinking the aircraft always flies with them so they would have been included in a "clean" airframe. Apparently, that's not true.
        Cool.
        Originally posted by eagle View Post
        Anyhow, the Gripen still manages to supercruise. Even if it's only a clean configuration, it still manages to do so with less thrust than anyone else. Hence it must have pretty low drag at least in the transsonic regime.
        But that is the point. Yes the Gripen may be a low drag airframe but I question it supercruising when burdened with a payload that a non Swedish nation, who have realistic payload/range requirements, would be expected to fly with.

        We know the HAF F-16C becomes subsonic on mil with a drag index greater than 0 (0 being wingtip AAMs only). On the F-16 each AMRAAM on a pylon has a drag index of 10, so moving from two A2A missiles to four A2A missiles creates a drag index of 20. Adding a centreline fuel tank plus pylon takes that to just short of 50. On mil power the F-16 is firmly subsonic, per page 159 here, https://info.publicintelligence.net/...Supplement.pdf

        Comment

        • MSphere
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2010
          • 8983

          Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
          This is not a duel. There are a gaggle of killing system around (SAM, wingmen, AAA, ECM, Cyber, Laser, MicroWave...). A missile launch will trigger all the attention you can get.
          Maybe, but that is not your problem, anymore.. Because with a Met up on your a$$, your only problem is to quickly find ejection handles.

          Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
          Now, if you are NOT stealthy, a long Range missile such as the Meteor is the best you can get. But time of engagement and hence, speed of the missile (and yourself), is of primordial importance (you have to get out of the attention bubble as fast as you can - this imply also a missile that can reach its autonomous guidance point the quickest).
          Out of the sudden, speed is important? Says the F-35?

          Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
          The Met with a cruise Mach fairly conventional is sadly already obsolete (if we speak in term of what is today on the drawing boards).
          I am still struggling with the idea what exactly makes your non-existing missiles on the drawing boards so much better.. Especially if they are HTK bodies with greatly reduced lethality and Pk.

          Comment

          • garryA
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2015
            • 1120

            Originally posted by obligatory View Post
            1]
            here's what google has to say about "notional"

            notional/ˈnōSH(ə)n(ə)l/
            adjective

            existing only in theory or as a suggestion or idea.
            Block 4/5 is future plan , so obviously they not in production yet

            Originally posted by obligatory View Post
            2] here's what your own link says about meteor
            " It is also compatible with other advanced fighter aircraft and will be integrated to the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter."
            And that exactly what will happen , sooner or later
            Let be reasonable here :
            UK wont buy F-35 just so thy ruined it's VLO characterist by carry weapon outside , and surely MBDA dont want to missed out on such a big market

            Comment

            • obligatory
              Senior Member
              • Oct 2008
              • 7043

              mbda will always want to make money, i dont think anyone is going to pay more for a lesser variant tho

              Comment

              • MSphere
                Senior Member
                • Feb 2010
                • 8983

                Originally posted by garryA View Post
                And that exactly what will happen , sooner or later
                Let be reasonable here: UK wont buy F-35 just so thy ruined it's VLO characterist by carry weapon outside , and surely MBDA dont want to missed out on such a big market
                There is a difference between integrating an existing missile and designing a new variant which fits inside the F-35 bays.
                The current one does not, AFAIK and requires redesign of the intakes..
                Last edited by MSphere; 15th February 2016, 09:44.

                Comment

                • garryA
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Dec 2015
                  • 1120

                  Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                  There is a difference between integrating an existing missile and designing a new variant which fits inside the F-35 bays.
                  The current one does not, AFAIK and requires redesign of the intakes..
                  No, the internal version has exactly same intake, same sensor, same motors, the only thing different is the clipped fin ( similar to outer different between AIM-120A/B vs AiM-120C) *
                  hardly a new design .
                  New design would be something like the version of Meteor with AESA seeker being co-developed by Japan and MBDA for their F-35, F-2

                  Comment

                  • garryA
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Dec 2015
                    • 1120

                    Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                    mbda will always want to make money, i dont think anyone is going to pay more for a lesser variant tho
                    I dont think it would be a lesser variant, just a bit smaller fin, AIM-120 made the same change
                    NSM made same change too

                    Comment

                    • Loke
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jun 2008
                      • 3302

                      Mumbai: Swedish aerospace and defence company Saab AB is ready to develop, manufacture and undertake the final assembly of its fighter jet Gripen in India, said Hakan Buskhe, president and chief executive, in an interview. “We could, with true ToT (transfer of technology), provide Indian Air Force with an Indian-built combat aircraft of the future, with technology of Gripen E (multi-role aircraft),” said Buskhe, who is in Mumbai to attend the Make in India week that began on 13 February.
                      http://www.livemint.com/Companies/RP...of-techno.html

                      Seems the race in India is on again, between Saab, Boeing, LM, and Eurofighter...

                      Comment

                      • Loke
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jun 2008
                        • 3302

                        https://twitter.com/GripenNews/statu...841088?lang=en


                        Interesting; I hadn't thought about the possibilities of AESA jammers to target different targets at the same time, and also with different signals. I wonder how many targets can be targeted at the same time?

                        Comment

                        • alexz
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 325

                          It would be great if IAF were to play along with the saab offer, and ask for a flyoff between the gripen E and the Tejas.

                          Would love to see if the gripen is as good as saab says it is. If the difference between the Tejas and Gripen E is marginal, then why bother?

                          Comment

                          • Loke
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jun 2008
                            • 3302

                            Originally posted by alexz View Post
                            It would be great if IAF were to play along with the saab offer, and ask for a flyoff between the gripen E and the Tejas.

                            Would love to see if the gripen is as good as saab says it is. If the difference between the Tejas and Gripen E is marginal, then why bother?
                            The IAF has lowered the bar for HAL and the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and virtually given up on the prospect of an LCA Mk2 model with the more powerful GE F-414 engine by agreeing to accept the existing LCA in large numbers with a few improvements.

                            Air Chief Marshal Raha said, “We want Tejas – just Tejas. No Mk1, (or) Mk2. Just the aircraft which they have prepared now – that we’ll take with little improvements which they themselves have recommended in terms of the radar, in terms of EW, in terms of flight refueling and in terms of better missiles.
                            http://www.stratpost.com/iaf-waits-f...ies-to-go-live

                            Since it seems they have given up on mk2, my guess is that you would see a significant difference between Gripen E and the Tejas.

                            In any case, the plan is to order only 120 Tejas, and if they stop at 36 Rafale, they will need more fighters.

                            Comment

                            • obligatory
                              Senior Member
                              • Oct 2008
                              • 7043

                              did india already pay for all those F414 intended for mk2 ?

                              Comment

                              • MSphere
                                Senior Member
                                • Feb 2010
                                • 8983

                                Originally posted by garryA View Post
                                No, the internal version has exactly same intake, same sensor, same motors, the only thing different is the clipped fin ( similar to outer different between AIM-120A/B vs AiM-120C) *
                                hardly a new design .
                                New design would be something like the version of Meteor with AESA seeker being co-developed by Japan and MBDA for their F-35, F-2
                                You're right, the problem with protruding intakes of the Met involves internal carriage in the F-22 Raptor, not the F-35. Sorry for the confusion.

                                Comment

                                • Loke
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jun 2008
                                  • 3302

                                  I think this has been posted before, but anyways; here is a nice summary of Gripen A/B/C/DE:


                                  http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a..._2014_jas7.pdf

                                  Comment

                                  • TomcatViP
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Nov 2011
                                    • 6061

                                    Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                    Maybe, but that is not your problem, anymore.. Because with a Met up on your a$$, your only problem is to quickly find ejection handles.

                                    Out of the sudden, speed is important? Says the F-35?


                                    I am still struggling with the idea what exactly makes your non-existing missiles on the drawing boards so much better.. Especially if they are HTK bodies with greatly reduced lethality and Pk.
                                    I am sorry MS, but you just have been the victim again of your vison acuity syndrome. Past the words Stealth or the number 35, you don't read anymore but... Figure.

                                    Stealth give you time hence a lesser reliance on speed. It is doubtless also that for a considerable amount of time an any f35 would be engaged at long range. Your Meteor shot is only in your imagination.
                                    We have seen how Ru have come around this problem. And it could involves passive identification of a volume of airspace, high impulse missiles and auto-search and acquire seekers. NOTHING on the line of a Meteor as pitched today by MBDA.
                                    Last edited by TomcatViP; 15th February 2016, 19:03.

                                    Comment

                                    • Sintra
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Aug 2007
                                      • 3845

                                      Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                                      Well, thats food for thought i grant you! Thanks, didnt knew the paper.

                                      This paper brings severall questions, like if the SACM/CUDA is such a great concept why the USAF and the Navy have repeatedly stated that a) for the foreseable future they are going to maintain the "9X" has their WVR weapon through technology block insertions, b) why the main American "future AAM" effort, the DARPA T3, is centered around a "medium sized" AAM (roughly AIM-120 class), c) why LM lost to Raytheon and Boeing the T3 contract, d) why theres no Pentagon requirement for such a weapon and e) why no one else, absolutely no one else, American, European, Russian, whatever, but LM, has brought forward anything like the CUDA concept?
                                      My own take is that "CUDA" was the LMs reaction to be "left behind" by DARPA on the T3 and its main job its to maintain design skills.

                                      On the topic of something like CUDA ending up in active service, a) first the Pentagon needs a requirement for such a weapon and AFAIK theres no public sign of it, b) then theres a decade to a decade and a half of development, so even if a) becomes reality (i wouldn bet on it, far from it), if it happens tomorrow, we would be looking at, well, (mid) thirties to actually field the Hardware?

                                      Again, thanks for the paper, its very interesting.
                                      Last edited by Sintra; 15th February 2016, 19:38.
                                      sigpic

                                      Comment

                                      • Sintra
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Aug 2007
                                        • 3845

                                        Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
                                        We have seen how Ru have come around this problem. And it could involves passive identification of a volume of airspace, high impulse missiles and auto-search and acquire seekers. NOTHING on the line of a Meteor as pitched today by MBDA.
                                        The R-37M and R-77M are "high impulse missiles"?
                                        Of whats publicly available (not much) at least one of DARPAs T3 designs (Raytheons) seems to be quite "Meterorish" (mid sized ramjet thingy), the Japanese are looking at a "evolved" Meteor has a possible future AAM and theres public information on a Chinese ramjet project.

                                        Cheers
                                        Last edited by Sintra; 15th February 2016, 19:41.
                                        sigpic

                                        Comment

                                        • hopsalot
                                          Senior Member
                                          • Aug 2012
                                          • 3166

                                          Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                                          Well, thats food for thought i grant you! Thanks, didnt knew the paper.

                                          This paper brings severall questions, like if the SACM/CUDA is such a great concept why the USAF and the Navy have repeatedly stated that a) for the foreseable future they are going to maintain the "9X" has their WVR weapon through technology block insertions, b) why the main American "future AAM" effort, the DARPA T3, is centered around a "medium sized" AAM (roughly AIM-120 class), c) why LM lost to Raytheon and Boeing the T3 contract, d) why theres no Pentagon requirement for such a weapon and e) why no one else, absolutely no one else, American, European, Russian, whatever, but LM, has brought forward anything like the CUDA concept?
                                          My own take is that "CUDA" was the LMs reaction to be "left behind" by DARPA on the T3 and its main job its to maintain design skills.

                                          On the topic of something like CUDA ending up in active service, a) first the Pentagon needs a requirement for such a weapon and AFAIK theres no public sign of it, b) then theres a decade to a decade and a half of development, so even if a) becomes reality (i wouldn bet on it, far from it), if it happens tomorrow, we would be looking at, well, mid thirties to actually field the Hardware?

                                          Again, thanks for the paper, its very interesting.

                                          The Aim-9x is the WVR weapon for the foreseeable future simply because no other program of record exists yet. What is happening in the missile sphere right now is similar to what is going on with 6th generation fighter designs. Studies are being conducted to mature technologies and define what capabilities the next generation system should target.

                                          The T3 effort isn't a formal program either... but yet another technology development effort with the intention of feeding the results into a future program.

                                          The Pentagon is in the process of trying to decide what it wants from a future missile... an AMRAAM sized missile is certainly a possibility and would likely have range/speed advantages. A SACM/CUDA missile is clearly another possibility, one that would allow greater numbers of missiles to be carried but presumably with reduced range.

                                          As for why nobody else has started work on something like CUDA... this is still an emerging niche. Not that long ago making a missile in that size class really wouldn't have been practical. Now that it appears practical, the question is whether it is desirable. (which is what the paper was examining)

                                          Personally I think the incentive to increase internal loadouts while providing adequate range will be a powerful incentive to develop a missile like CUDA. Extremely long-range weapons have their place, but what range will a typical engagement take place at? The simulation paper suggested an average engagement range of 30-40km using a CUDA-like missile.... is that enough? Would gaining more range be worth losing half of your missiles? (or obviously what would an optimal loadout consist of? A pair of Meteor/T3-like missiles paired with 8 CUDA-like missiles?)


                                          On the timeline issue... I think a new missile could emerge by the mid 2020s. The key thing here is that work has been ongoing to mature the underlying technologies for some time now. The T3 missiles have already flown in at least a tech demonstrator form. I would look at the Stunner missile from Rafael/Raytheon as an example. Its development started in 2006 and it is scheduled to enter service soon. If anything given the work already done it might be possible to beat that timeline slightly.
                                          Last edited by hopsalot; 15th February 2016, 19:56.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X