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
  • Loke
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jun 2008
    • 3302

    BUFFALO, N.Y. Officials at the Amherst Systems business unit of Northrop Grumman Corp. delivered a Combat Electromagnetic Environment Simulator (CEESIM) to SAAB AB, Surveillance in Jarfalla, Sweden. CEESIM will perform aircraft testing on the Gripen JAS 39 multirole fighter.
    This marks the first international delivery of a CEESIM system with APG technology, officials say.
    http://mil-embedded.com/news/saab-ab...craft-testing/

    What is Dassault and Eurofighter using...?

    Comment

    • APRichelieu
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Mar 2016
      • 149

      F-16 production moved to Greenville, South Carolina.
      Dropping out of India procurement?

      Comment

      • haavarla
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Dec 2008
        • 6715

        Originally posted by APRichelieu View Post
        F-16 production moved to Greenville, South Carolina.
        Dropping out of India procurement?

        Like 5 years ago

        Funny to see the Senator from South Caroline spin her wheels..
        Thanks

        Comment

        • Spitfire9
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jul 2008
          • 2848

          Originally posted by APRichelieu View Post
          F-16 production moved to Greenville, South Carolina.
          If the line needs to be dismantled to allow the space to be used for F-35 activities, why not just move all the production line equipment to storage when the last aircraft on order have been produced? Seems a strange thing to do to me.
          Sum ergo cogito

          Comment

          • BlackArcher
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2010
            • 4374

            Originally posted by obligatory View Post
            i think what blackarcher meant was: in software controlled flight, gripen does not exceed 26 AoA,
            software will see to it that it doesnt go further.
            i wonder if its common to override software limit among regular pilots ?
            is there disciplinary measures taken if they do ?
            it may not be the smartest thing to do in a many vs many scenario,
            but i think the pilots will have an itch to pull 12g on occasion
            I doubt that the pilot is allowed to over-ride the FCS to pull it over 26 deg alpha during regular missions.

            This Region II of the FCS and the auto-recovery that is mentioned, is a contingency measure that is taken to avoid the loss of control and possible stall, due to an inadvertent event that may lead to exceeding the 26 deg max alpha. Such as the loss of the Gripen during a training flight where the pilot entered into the wake vortices of the leading aircraft.

            SHK's final report not available in English concluded that the plane had passed through the other aircraft's wake vortex while in a steep (−70 degrees) dive. When passing, the pilot's pitch command was "up", but instead the vortex inflicted a large aerodynamic transient on the aircraft, throwing it down into an almost vertical (−85 degrees) dive. These factors combined to create an angle of attack that was too large for the command to be obeyed, and so the ground-collision warning system alerted the pilot that a turn to avoid a crash would require more than 10 g. The pilot elected to vacate the aircraft in accordance with the flight manual. At the same moment the vortex effect ceased, reducing the angle of attack to within flyable limits. Although the aircraft could theoretically have been saved, the ejection sequence had already been initiated and could not be stopped.

            The flight status at the moment of ejection was: altitude 750 m, flight angle −75 degrees, speed 350 km/h, angle of attack −8 degrees, and load −1.5 g.[5]

            Comment

            • Loke
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2008
              • 3302

              Gripen performs at LIMA 2017:

              http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Pos...t.aspx?ID=1636

              Comment

              • Loke
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jun 2008
                • 3302

                Blast from the past: Gripen E/Fs "secret weapon" is the brand new EW suite, based on GaN AESA:

                https://twitter.com/gripennews/statu...64889669943296

                GaN offers higher output power, and wideband jamming.

                From the picture it seems there are seven(?) units -- why so many? Will there be enough distance between them to do anything useful? Or is it useful only when used as sensors and not when jamming? Or do you need that many units to do the "active stealth" trick?

                How many units does Rafale and Typhoon have for their EW suites?
                Last edited by Loke; 29th March 2017, 08:55.

                Comment

                • halloweene
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jan 2012
                  • 4350

                  Originally posted by Loke View Post
                  Blast from the past: Gripen E/Fs "secret weapon" is the brand new EW suite, based on GaN AESA:

                  https://twitter.com/gripennews/statu...64889669943296

                  GaN offers higher output power, and wideband jamming.

                  From the picture it seems there are seven(?) units -- why so many? Will there be enough distance between them to do anything useful? Or is it useful only when used as sensors and not when jamming? Or do you need that many units to do the "active stealth" trick?

                  How many units does Rafale and Typhoon have for their EW suites?
                  You need two precisely located (each other) to perform proper interferometry. Otherwise, forwards and rearwards Rafale, 6 afaik DRFMs and emitters are separated) but i should check.

                  Comment

                  • Loke
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jun 2008
                    • 3302

                    "Saab will have a supply plant for the Gripen program in So Bernardo. The details are being finalized and will be announced in due course, "the fighter plane maker said after questioning the Diary . The name of the company, which was SBTA (So Bernardo Aeronuticas Technologies), changed to SAM (Saab Aeronutica Montagens).
                    The vice president assured that SAM will begin producing the structural parts in So Bernardo in 2019, when the first aircraft is to be delivered. And it has good prospects, as deadlines are on schedule - despite the almost one-year delay in completing the Saab-FAB agreement, the advance of the economic crisis and the drop in interest rates in Europe, as well as the changes The municipal and federal governments.

                    Germundsson revealed that he has received 43 localization proposals in the region's municipality, of which 10 have already been visited and five are being analyzed for the hammer to be struck, which is expected to occur in the next two months after the FAB also approves the site. The estimated investment is $ 150 million.
                    The executive also said that two potential candidates for the position of general manager of SAM will be interviewed today. He estimated that 200 to 250 direct jobs will be generated between three and five years. This is not to mention the indirect costs, which come from 25-30 suppliers, which may include industrialists from the region. According to the vice-president, it makes no sense to import raw material from Europe and Sweden while the national supply chain can be developed.
                    "Regarding the technology transfer program, 150 Brazilian engineers are in training in Linkping, Sweden. Another 34 have returned and by 2024 there will be more than 350 qualified. The technology transfer program will be delivered over about ten years and includes classroom teaching, student funding programs and hands-on training during work in Sweden, "Saab said.

                    At the end of the program, according to the company, the aim is for local industry and the FAB to master all the critical knowledge needed for the future development of fighters. Saab wants to make Brazil an export platform for Latin American countries.
                    Google translated from: http://www.aereo.jor.br/2017/03/22/s...-sao-bernardo/

                    Something for India to take notice of...?

                    Comment

                    • BlackArcher
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Dec 2010
                      • 4374

                      Question for those who may know more on the Gripen development plans- was the idea of conformal fuel tanks for the Gripen ever taken forward? FG has an article from 2001 that talks about an enhanced Gripen that would feature CFTs. Or was this subsumed into the Gripen NG/E program wherein the additional fuel was to be included internally ?

                      Comment

                      • obligatory
                        Senior Member
                        • Oct 2008
                        • 7043

                        from what i understand it was a choice between CFT vs redesigning land gear to boost range,
                        the latter was decided on, when it became clear how much it could accomplish
                        Last edited by obligatory; 31st March 2017, 01:10.

                        Comment

                        • Loke
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jun 2008
                          • 3302

                          Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                          from what i understand it was a choice between CFT vs redesigning land gear to boost range,
                          the latter was decided on, when it became clear how much it could accomplish
                          Actually they started with three options: CFTs, relocate landing gear, and make the Gripen longer. They chose to go with a combination of the latter two. Gripen E is 15.2m long and has a width of 8.6m compared to 14.1m and 8.4m for Gripen C (Gripen D is a 14.8m long).

                          Of course I do not know if all this extra space is used for fuel, perhaps some of it is used for other purposes... perhaps it also partly explains the increase in empty weight?

                          Edit: This is a nice summary: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a..._2014_jas7.pdf

                          Internal fuel capacity increases by 50%...
                          Last edited by Loke; 31st March 2017, 08:14.

                          Comment

                          • JakobS
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Aug 2015
                            • 155

                            Originally posted by BlackArcher View Post
                            Question for those who may know more on the Gripen development plans- was the idea of conformal fuel tanks for the Gripen ever taken forward? FG has an article from 2001 that talks about an enhanced Gripen that would feature CFTs. Or was this subsumed into the Gripen NG/E program wherein the additional fuel was to be included internally ?
                            For the original Gripen A there was a study on it in the late 90's. There are some drawings of it in one of all the books my father have, but it was decided after the pre-study that it was not very effective.

                            Comment

                            • Loke
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2008
                              • 3302

                              The question is if they should revisit CFTs as part of a "Silent Gripen" where drop tanks are replaced by low-RCS CFTs and the munitions are positioned in a low-RCS pod. However there is a risk that the Gripen is too small for this to be efficient. I can see Rafale move in this direction.

                              Comment

                              • Halo
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Apr 2009
                                • 212

                                New version of RBS 15 Air-Surface/ship missile ordered for Gripen system incl Gripen E, apparently version "MK3+", what ever that means..

                                http://www.fmv.se/sv/Nyheter-och-pre...malsrobot/?p=4

                                Comment

                                • Loke
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jun 2008
                                  • 3302

                                  Same news but in English:

                                  Saab lists the 4.35m (14.3ft)-long, sea-skimming RBS15F ER as weighing around 600kg (1,320lb), including a 200kg warhead. It cites an operational range of more than 108nm (200km).
                                  https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...issile-435772/

                                  Not a word about reduced RCS...

                                  Anyway, my guess is that the JSM will probably be fitted to Gripen if Finland (against all odds) purchase the Gripen E.

                                  Comment

                                  • BlackArcher
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Dec 2010
                                    • 4374

                                    Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                    Actually they started with three options: CFTs, relocate landing gear, and make the Gripen longer. They chose to go with a combination of the latter two. Gripen E is 15.2m long and has a width of 8.6m compared to 14.1m and 8.4m for Gripen C (Gripen D is a 14.8m long).

                                    Of course I do not know if all this extra space is used for fuel, perhaps some of it is used for other purposes... perhaps it also partly explains the increase in empty weight?

                                    Edit: This is a nice summary: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a..._2014_jas7.pdf

                                    Internal fuel capacity increases by 50%...
                                    Thanks for the reply to that question.

                                    Comment

                                    • Loke
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2008
                                      • 3302

                                      Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                      Actually they started with three options: CFTs, relocate landing gear, and make the Gripen longer. They chose to go with a combination of the latter two. Gripen E is 15.2m long and has a width of 8.6m compared to 14.1m and 8.4m for Gripen C (Gripen D is a 14.8m long).

                                      Of course I do not know if all this extra space is used for fuel, perhaps some of it is used for other purposes... perhaps it also partly explains the increase in empty weight?

                                      Edit: This is a nice summary: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a..._2014_jas7.pdf

                                      Internal fuel capacity increases by 50%...
                                      To compare the Gripen E to F-16 block 50:

                                      Gripen E: Length 15.2m, Width 8.6m, Wing Area: 31 m2, empty weight 8,000kg, max internal fuel 3,400kg, MTOW 16,500kg*
                                      F-16 bl50: Length 15.06m, Width 9.96m, Wing Area 27.9m2, empty weight 8,570kg, max internal fuel 3,200kg, MTOW 19,200kg

                                      Gripen is has grown to be roughly in the same class as the F-16 block 50. The main concern I would have for the Gripen E is if the engine is powerful enough.

                                      (of course F-16 block 60/70 has also grown compared to block 50....)

                                      *(recent sources claim 17,000kg)
                                      Last edited by Loke; 31st March 2017, 19:36.

                                      Comment

                                      • BlackArcher
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Dec 2010
                                        • 4374

                                        Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                                        from what i understand it was a choice between CFT vs redesigning land gear to boost range,
                                        the latter was decided on, when it became clear how much it could accomplish
                                        Thank you.

                                        Comment

                                        • kirtap
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Sep 2009
                                          • 230

                                          Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                          Anyway, my guess is that the JSM will probably be fitted to Gripen if Finland (against all odds) purchase the Gripen E.
                                          Hopefully it will. Better fit for a small fighter like -39 than gigantic RBS-15.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X