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
  • Sintra
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Aug 2007
    • 3849

    Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
    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.
    Fine text, i agree.
    sigpic

    Comment

    • MSphere
      Senior Member
      • Feb 2010
      • 8983

      Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
      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.
      No matter how hard I read, I have no idea what exactly did you intend to say with this...

      Comment

      • MSphere
        Senior Member
        • Feb 2010
        • 8983

        Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
        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.
        And that's the problem I have with your claim of "12 missiles for the F-35". No T3, no CUDA, there is nothing like that even in the pipeline as we speak..

        Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
        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?)
        The range is not the problem.. The problem is the HTK concept. In order to maximize range and minimize the dimensions, CUDA would have to give up virtually everything else. Most notably guidance section and warhead. You could most likely launch the missile at 30-40km, but the true Pk and target survivalability remain anybody's guess.. Don't be surprised if your 12 HTK missiles kill less than what two AMRAAMs could.

        Comment

        • hopsalot
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2012
          • 3166

          Originally posted by MSphere View Post
          And that's the problem I have with your claim of "12 missiles for the F-35". No T3, no CUDA, there is nothing like that even in the pipeline as we speak..
          Guess that depends how you define "pipeline." Such weapons are being developed but I guess you find details confusing.

          The range is not the problem.. The problem is the HTK concept. In order to maximize range and minimize the dimensions, CUDA would have to give up virtually everything else. Most notably guidance section and warhead. You could most likely launch the missile at 30-40km, but the true Pk and target survivalability remain anybody's guess.. Don't be surprised if your 12 HTK missiles kill less than what two AMRAAMs could.
          According to MSphere...

          Comment

          • maurobaggio
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jul 2008
            • 521

            Originally posted by Sintra View Post
            One of a multitude of possible improvements studied under the program "Gripen 2010" was TVC, but that was not the main reason for searching for a new engine, it was thrust, Saab invited bids from GE and Eurojet, while having paralel talks with Volvo. GE won.

            The F414 has been chosen for the Gripen NG, however the EJ200 with 3D TVC were canceled long before that, just as there aren't in the West market any engine with 3D TVC that could be compatible with the Gripen NG. It seems to me that the only turbine with TVC in the West is the F119 from F/A 22 Raptor.

            Just as curiosity should be mentioned that in the decade of the 1990s it had been estimated that any future without TVC engines will be outdated in the next decades, due to the F/A 22 Raptor with TVC. In fact both Rafale and the Typhoon were planned in future versions with TVC.

            However after F 35 without 3D TVC has been defining the JSF winner , as well as the ban on exporting the F/A 22 for allies of the US, all the other proposal of TVC in the West fighters (Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen) also has left the TVC capability, perhaps not by coincidence.

            Originally posted by Sintra View Post

            "Gripen 2010" image (circa 2000) right here:

            [ATTACH=CONFIG]244019[/ATTACH]

            Notice the CFTs? And below there were two aditional pylons by comparison with a Gripen C. SAAB was indeed looking for increases in range and bigger weapon loads even before the 2000s started.
            AFAIK the engine nozzles from Gripen 2010 in this illustration does not look like: F414, F404 or even the EJ200.

            In fact the engine nozzles from Gripen 2010 in my humble opinion could have been indicating any new proposed TVC system,may be similar that system it has been used in MICA and R 73 missiles, or even something close to X 31.

            Indeed you are right once the EJ200 would provides 10% more thrust than the F404(RM 12) from Gripen C / D , so it were possible that the Gripen 2010 had a weapons load or fuel capabilities greater than Gripen C / D. Otherwise less than 23% with F414.

            Just as the introduction of CFT may be associated with the replacement of the drop fuel tanks, once the CFT has offered less aerodynamic drag, and it are also removable for missions where it are not needed or could decrease the maneuverability like in A2A missions.

            However as far I could see in the illustration I have noticed only the additional pylon from Litening pod , just it has already been used in Gripen C / D today.


            In short, the Gripen 2010 seems in my humble opinion a more complex and advanced proposal than the current Gripen NG.


            Originally posted by Sintra View Post
            What problem?
            Only this silly question:

            Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
            I have been keeping those doubts for years, but it could be resumed in this question: if the engine F414 does wonders for the Gripen NG today, why they have waited 21 years to implement this?

            Then my doubts about this new project Gripen NG will obtain more range and weapons load and at least the same maneuverability and STOL capabilities that it has been achieved with Gripen A/B/C/D. Once the F/A 18 E/F had been quite modified from the F/A 18C/D, since the same it will not expect for the Gripen NG from Gripen C/D.

            Even If the Gripen NG could really achieve supercruise of the Mach 1.2., yet it does not mean such good reason as well as more internal fuel capability, in my humble opinion to sacrifice the maneuverability or STOL capabilities to obtain it.

            Comment

            • MSphere
              Senior Member
              • Feb 2010
              • 8983

              Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
              According to MSphere...
              Find a single logical fallacy in that statement, will you?

              Comment

              • hopsalot
                Senior Member
                • Aug 2012
                • 3166

                Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                Find a single logical fallacy in that statement, will you?
                That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

                You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is everyone else's responsibility to correct any dumb idea that pops into your head.

                If you were someone noteworthy your opinion might count for something... if you were even knowledgeable it might bear some weight... but given that neither of these is the case why should anyone need to make an effort to prove your unsourced assertions wrong?

                Comment

                • Loke
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jun 2008
                  • 3302

                  Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                  If you were someone noteworthy your opinion might count for something... if you were even knowledgeable it might bear some weight... but given that neither of these is the case why should anyone need to make an effort to prove your unsourced assertions wrong?
                  Sigh.

                  Then why do you keep responding? You try to create the impression that you are "grown-up" compared to MSphere. However the fact that you keep responding to him somewhat distorts that image...

                  Why don't you just put him on ignore? Or alternatively, stop responding to him.

                  Thanks.

                  Comment

                  • Loke
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jun 2008
                    • 3302

                    Saab will showcase a full scale Gripen E replica at FIDAE 2016:

                    http://www.aeroin.net/saab-ira-expor...na-fidae-2016/

                    Nice picture! (but this must be from a previous event?)

                    Comment

                    • Loke
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jun 2008
                      • 3302

                      STOCKHOLM (AFX) Weekend talks between Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lfven and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi touched a possible Gripen Business and, according to Dagens Industri experience the Government was so positive signals that they decided to launch a comprehensive process to bring about a sale .

                      The text mentions that India plans to buy 100-400 fighter. As for the country's decision some years ago to buy French Rafaleplan stated it is now not certain that even the first 36 planes of this type are purchased.
                      Google translated from: http://www.di.se/finansiell-informat...6-635a50f0f5e6

                      The Swedes are definitely gung-ho about this now! And this is the second time today I see somebody indicating that perhaps the Indian Rafale deal may go down the drain.


                      My gut feeling says this is now between Gripen and SH... Typhoon seems a highly unlikely candidate, it's price would probably be in the same range as Rale.

                      Comment

                      • Spitfire9
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jul 2008
                        • 2832

                        Originally posted by Loke View Post
                        Google translated from: http://www.di.se/finansiell-informat...6-635a50f0f5e6

                        STOCKHOLM (AFX) Weekend talks between Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lfven and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi touched a possible Gripen Business and, according to Dagens Industri experience the Government was so positive signals that they decided to launch a comprehensive process to bring about a sale .
                        The Swedes are definitely gung-ho about this now! And this is the second time today I see somebody indicating that perhaps the Indian Rafale deal may go down the drain.

                        My gut feeling says this is now between Gripen and SH... Typhoon seems a highly unlikely candidate, it's price would probably be in the same range as Rafale.
                        The reported comments of the Air Chief Marshal to the effect that IAF has no interest in a Tejas Mk2 puts Gripen E in a stronger position that hitherto IMO. My take is that the air marshal sees the risk of an enormous delay in Mk2 being developed, tested and going into volume production as unacceptable. If India opted for Gripen E, there is the possibility of a naval version being available, too. Additionally I don't foresee AMCA coming to fruition in less than 15-20 years (if ever) without teaming up with a company with the ability to take on such a project. IMO trying to go it alone on AMCA would likely result in India ordering F-35 ten years from now when it became clear that India was not capable of developing the aircraft in the time frame required.
                        Sum ergo cogito

                        Comment

                        • MSphere
                          Senior Member
                          • Feb 2010
                          • 8983

                          Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                          “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens
                          You surely have had the assertions about "unparalleled situational awareness of the F-35" in mind when you posted this..

                          Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                          You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is everyone else's responsibility to correct any dumb idea that pops into your head.

                          If you were someone noteworthy your opinion might count for something... if you were even knowledgeable it might bear some weight... but given that neither of these is the case why should anyone need to make an effort to prove your unsourced assertions wrong?
                          If you go back to my post, you will see that I did not even ask you to dismiss my claims.. Instead, I have politely requested that you at least make the first baby step towards posting something useful and find logical fallacies in the post of mine.. which by no means equals to debunking them but it would certainly be a good start...
                          Last edited by MSphere; 16th February 2016, 13:04.

                          Comment

                          • Yama
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Feb 2012
                            • 636

                            Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                            No, the laws of physics did not change. Just as they didn't change when we went from this:

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]244035[/ATTACH]

                            To this:

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]244036[/ATTACH]



                            At an equivalent technology level a larger missile optimized for BVR engagements is going to offer better BVR performance than a significantly smaller missile design compromised to try to offer acceptable WVR and BVR performance from the same missile. This really isn't a complicated concept to grasp.
                            I was not aware Moore's law applied to solid rocket propellants and aerodynamics.
                            Concept of CUDA relies on several assumptions which are yet to be proven. Most notably, without warhead and fusing it actually becomes viable for target to avoid it by maneuvering, which is hard/impossible against present cutting edge missiles.

                            Any way, if CUDA-like missiles work, there is no reason why they wouldn't be used in Gripen as well.

                            Comment

                            • Loke
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2008
                              • 3302

                              More from Finnish blogger Korporal Frisk's recent visit to Saab:

                              “Well” he explained, “the Hornet is a good aircraft. But this was a rather young pilot, and I know where I want my Gripen to be.
                              When talking about the impact of high off-boresight missiles such as the IRIS-T and the AIM-9X currently used by Finnish F/A-18C, it was clear that they were game changers:

                              “No longer can you be safe just because you’re here”, explained Brnnstrm and indicated one fighter behind another one. “There are certain differences I can’t talk about [between the AIM-9X and the IRIS-T], but this [the IRIS-T] is the one I’d buy.”

                              The data link capability is something Saab is very proud of, and while many fighters today can share information through the use of systems such as Link 16, the Gripen has some further unspecified additional capability as well, causing Brnnstrm to reflect that in a mixed formation with different fighters, “I believe I’d be the happiest one.”
                              Read more: https://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/...est-the-pilot/

                              Comment

                              • Confucius says
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Apr 2011
                                • 231

                                Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                Google translated from: http://www.di.se/finansiell-informat...6-635a50f0f5e6

                                The Swedes are definitely gung-ho about this now! And this is the second time today I see somebody indicating that perhaps the Indian Rafale deal may go down the drain.


                                My gut feeling says this is now between Gripen and SH... Typhoon seems a highly unlikely candidate, it's price would probably be in the same range as Rale.
                                There is little doubt that India wants a fighter in the price range of a Gripen/SH, but probably still in the class of a Rafale/Typhoon. Obviously this is a bit of a challenge...

                                Comment

                                • Spitfire9
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jul 2008
                                  • 2832

                                  Originally posted by Confucius says View Post
                                  There is little doubt that India wants a fighter in the price range of a Gripen/SH, but probably still in the class of a Rafale/Typhoon. Obviously this is a bit of a challenge...
                                  A little economics truism: the buyer has a highest price he is prepared to accept; the seller has a lowest price he is prepared to accept. A perfect buyer will buy at the lowest price the seller is prepared to accept; a perfect seller will sell at the highest price the buyer is prepared to accept. But if the buyer's highest acceptable price is below the seller's lowest acceptable price... obviously this is a bit of a challenge to making a deal.
                                  Sum ergo cogito

                                  Comment

                                  • Sintra
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Aug 2007
                                    • 3849

                                    Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                                    I have been keeping those doubts for years, but it could be resumed in this question: if the engine F414 does wonders for the Gripen NG today, why they have waited 21 years to implement this?
                                    Money, or lack of it.
                                    Redesigning a fighter jet to accept a bigger, heavier engine is complex (i can remember Roy Braybrook writing about the "one thousand screaming pains" of having to redesign an ungodly number of times the air intake of the Hawker Hunter, and is sarcastic comments about the F-4K) and expensive at least for the kind of budget that the Swedish Mod can afford. SAAB could only redesign the "dam thing" when the Swedish money purse went open, and that was recently.

                                    Cheers
                                    Last edited by Sintra; 16th February 2016, 19:55.
                                    sigpic

                                    Comment

                                    • The_5aab_God
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Mar 2015
                                      • 161

                                      Originally posted by Confucius says View Post
                                      There is little doubt that India wants a fighter in the price range of a Gripen/SH, but probably still in the class of a Rafale/Typhoon. Obviously this is a bit of a challenge...

                                      Not if you listen to some of the posters here... Gripen E is the best of all worlds!!

                                      As a Saab fan this thread is embarrassing. I think the Gripen E first and foremost needs to be compared to the original Gripen. It then needs to be remembered that this is an IMPROVEMENT on the original. We also know about the F414 engine. Its very much a known commodity. 21 years of operation. Millions of hours. suddenly, intake redesign makes engine 25 percent more powerful? Overnight? yes, of course. the engine was unaware it was in a Gripen, now with new intake?! 25 percent "boost"

                                      Posters here seem to think a 40 percent increase in internal fuel, 5 percent fuel consumption reduction thanks to F414, 17 percent increase in weight (8000 kg empty= F-16C) with a 7 percent increase in dry thrust = 9000 percent better. Be realistic. Hopsalot is right. Even the crazy over the Super Cruise here. Why? F-35 super cruise of 150 miles is measured WITH BOMBS. Remove bombs, place AAM's Super Cruise improves for longer duration. Why does super cruise matter? because GRipen Demo-- which is not representitive of even a prototype== it is a concept DEMOnstrator. I believe Saab says first flight of prototpye this year. Does Saab not know difference between proto and demo? No. Msphere is right Saab. Go home Saab. used afterburner to get beyond Mach 1, then throttled back to dry power to "super cruise" who cares? question is can Gripen E super cruise? and if so, does it matter?

                                      F-16 Thrust, plus F-16 combat load (same), Weight Empty(Same) Plus F-16 Aerodynamics (worse)= F-16 quality

                                      Gripen E thrust (30 percent less than F-16), Plus F-16 combat Load (same), Weight empty (same) Plus Gripen aerodynamics (better) = massive kinematic superiority?

                                      F-35 has smaller AAM internal ability. Gripen has zero internal ability.

                                      Gripen E 8000 kg, 1000 Kg heavier than target. Saab is not stupid. If they could make it lighter they would have. LoL at posters who think the weight will come down. Its not going to come down. It is where it is, its not like they "forgot" to make the aircraft as light as possible. Weight is more likely to increase in fact. Like Super Hornet, Gripen C will have many kinematic advantages over the Gripen E, but purpose of Gripen E is not designed to be Kinematically superior to older gripen in the first place. F-16 is great airplane. listening to people post in here suddenly F-16 is a brick? Why the delusion? Why must we overestimate Gripen? Gripen E is going to be heavier (closer to F-16) Larger (again moving closer to F-16) yet we act as though F-16 is terrible? and automatically seen first?

                                      I feel bad for the pilot that has never lost a dogfight. Realistic training gets you "killed" that is how it should be. if you aren't "dying" you aren't trying. he is either an amazing pilot (possible) a liar (a boastful fighter pilot?! no way) or the training is not very good

                                      I like gripen. I like Saab. I do not like propoganda
                                      Last edited by The_5aab_God; 16th February 2016, 22:19.

                                      Comment

                                      • Loke
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2008
                                        • 3302

                                        Gripen E for sure will be a light-weight fighter and not in the same class as Rafale, SH or Typhoon.


                                        The E will not be the right a/c for everybody; however for countries like Brazil, Switzerland, etc. it seems like a good fit. And I think it could also be a good fit for countries with higher ambitions if combined with another a/c (i.e. the "lo" in a "hi-lo" mix). The whole point with a "lo" is that it is low-cost but still good performance.

                                        The Indian thinking seems strange; one of very few countries that go for a "light-medium-heavy" fleet. Perhaps politically motivated...

                                        Comment

                                        • Loke
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jun 2008
                                          • 3302

                                          Swedish Gripen are bombing Russian forces in Lithuania:

                                          https://twitter.com/David_M_Bergman/...90267960569856

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X