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
  • Spitfire9
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jul 2008
    • 2822

    Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
    F-35 can fly 150 miles at mach 1.2 on dry thrust, Gripen can supercruise at mach 1.1 with 2 aam, so they are not that much different
    I don't believe this means what it sounds like: aircraft accelerates to M1.2 then maintains M1.2 in level flight on dry thrust for 150 miles. I see no reason why it should only be capable of maintaining M1.2 for 150 miles flying level. That suggests that the range of F-35 is 150 miles @ M1.2 + distance required to reach M1.2 and that does not add up to me.
    Sum ergo cogito

    Comment

    • obligatory
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2008
      • 7043

      the troll pilot start out admitting it isnt supercruise in a technical sense,
      so we can conclude it cant maintain mach 1.2 in level flight, or even mach 1 for that matter.
      We also know from another confirmation it takes "a teeny weeny bit of a/b" to stay supersonic,
      so: the probable scenario is accelerating above mach 1.2 with a/b,
      and then slowly decelerate on military while descending, and it drop below mach 1.2 after 150 miles

      Comment

      • mig-31bm
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Oct 2013
        • 2116

        Originally posted by MSphere View Post
        MiG-31, without doubt.. F-22, too.. But F-111 and F-15, how did you come to that conclusion?
        F-15 = variable intake
        F-111 = variable intake, variable geometry wing, load of fuel

        Originally posted by MSphere View Post
        That alone does not matter.. It all depends on if it's sufficiently easy to perform so that it can be used regularly.. With the F-35 I strongly suspect that you need to use a lot of burner to crawl through the transonic region to M1.2 and
        Su-27 with 4 aam take around same time as F-35A to accelerate from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2
        Originally posted by MSphere View Post
        then after switching it off the speed slowly degrades to M1.0 which takes those mentioned 150 miles. If that is true, then it's not an operationally viable capability which saves fuel or increases range, just an useless PR stunt....
        you would be surprised that apart from SR-71, Mig-25/31, concorde , others aircraft doesn't stay in supersonic for long, even F-22 only include supersonic leng of 100 nm in its mission profile

        Comment

        • mig-31bm
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Oct 2013
          • 2116

          Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
          I don't believe this means what it sounds like: aircraft accelerates to M1.2 then maintains M1.2 in level flight on dry thrust for 150 miles. I see no reason why it should only be capable of maintaining M1.2 for 150 miles flying level. That suggests that the range of F-35 is 150 miles @ M1.2 + distance required to reach M1.2 and that does not add up to me.
          Or may be that flying supersonic consump alot of fuel so only a tiny bit are included in mission profile, F-22 itself only include 100 nm supercruise in its combat radius

          Comment

          • MSphere
            Senior Member
            • Feb 2010
            • 8983

            Supercruise is just a marketing gimmick, a leftover from the Raptor times where it was presented as the end goal in order to highlight its kinematic abilities. But in reality, supercruise is just a tool to achieve more supersonic range.. That is the parameter which should be considered decisive..

            Despite the trumpeted unparalleled kinematics, the F-22 is not the king of cruisers.. MiG-31 is.. right, it can't supercruise... but it can do 720 km @ M2.3+. With or without burners is of secondary importance.. Of course, there is the question of IR signature but IMO, the aerodynamic friction kind of balances that out... plus the fact that interception of a target soaring at M2+ would be an exclusive domain of radar guided missiles, anyway..

            I remember a quote which stated that the F-35 had roughly the same range at M1.5 as the F-22 (in the ballpark of 100 nautical miles).. That the F135 soaring at full burner would be only marginally less fuel efficient than a twinpack of F119s at full military thrust.. In my eyes, that does not make the F-35 kinematically impressive rather than makes the F-22's speed advantage much less practical than originally thought.
            Last edited by MSphere; 7th February 2016, 12:10.

            Comment

            • hopsalot
              Senior Member
              • Aug 2012
              • 3166

              Originally posted by MSphere View Post
              MiG-31, without doubt.. F-22, too.. But F-111 and F-15, how did you come to that conclusion?
              Probably the same method you use...

              Comment

              • hopsalot
                Senior Member
                • Aug 2012
                • 3166

                Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                the troll pilot start out admitting it isnt supercruise in a technical sense,
                so we can conclude it cant maintain mach 1.2 in level flight, or even mach 1 for that matter.
                We also know from another confirmation it takes "a teeny weeny bit of a/b" to stay supersonic,
                so: the probable scenario is accelerating above mach 1.2 with a/b,
                and then slowly decelerate on military while descending, and it drop below mach 1.2 after 150 miles
                We have "troll pilots" now? That is really a new low, even for you.

                Gripen says it can "supercruise" at M1.1 with a couple air to air missiles at its ideal altitude, and without turning... That is clearly a super useful capability.

                Comment

                • MSphere
                  Senior Member
                  • Feb 2010
                  • 8983

                  Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                  Probably the same method you use...
                  Ah, you mean the same method you use when talking about F-35's unparalleled situational awareness?

                  Comment

                  • Spitfire9
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jul 2008
                    • 2822

                    Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                    Gripen says it can "supercruise" at M1.1 with a couple air to air missiles at its ideal altitude, and without turning... That is clearly a super useful capability.
                    Mmm... something that it would be useful to do becomes useless when F-35 can't do it. At least you're consistent - anything the F-35 can do that other types cannot is of the utmost merit; anything F-35 cannot do that other types can is of the utmost unimportance.
                    Sum ergo cogito

                    Comment

                    • MSphere
                      Senior Member
                      • Feb 2010
                      • 8983

                      Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                      Gripen says it can "supercruise" at M1.1 with a couple air to air missiles at its ideal altitude, and without turning... That is clearly a super useful capability.
                      Clearly, Gripen won't get very far at that speed, as we have already discussed a month ago. The problem is: neither will the F-35.. you have a fighter with weight, price and fiuel volume comparable to F-15E, with almost ridiculous 191kN thrust and still you end up with parameters marginally better or worse than the tiny JAS39. In reality you can't fly faster, won't get further or carry more than the Gripen at these speeds. Then what is all that power, thrust and weight good for?

                      Remember, every 4kg of the F-35 cost roughly as much as 1kg of gold, it would be wise to keep the weight as low as possible..
                      Last edited by MSphere; 7th February 2016, 14:44.

                      Comment

                      • hopsalot
                        Senior Member
                        • Aug 2012
                        • 3166

                        Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
                        Mmm... something that it would be useful to do becomes useless when F-35 can't do it. At least you're consistent - anything the F-35 can do that other types cannot is of the utmost merit; anything F-35 cannot do that other types can is of the utmost unimportance.
                        Given that the F-35 can sustain M1.2 with an internal load.... not sure the point you are trying to make.

                        Comment

                        • hopsalot
                          Senior Member
                          • Aug 2012
                          • 3166

                          Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                          Clearly, Gripen won't get very far at that speed, as we have already discussed a month ago. The problem is: neither will the F-35.. you have a fighter with weight, price and fiuel volume comparable to F-15E, with almost ridiculous 191kN thrust and still you end up with parameters marginally better or worse than the tiny JAS39. In reality you can't fly faster, won't get further or carry more than the Gripen at these speeds. Then what is all that power, thrust and weight good for?

                          Remember, every 4kg of the F-35 cost roughly as much as 1kg of gold, it would be wise to keep the weight as low as possible..
                          Not sure which stats you are looking at.... as usual.

                          Comment

                          • MSphere
                            Senior Member
                            • Feb 2010
                            • 8983

                            Supersonic range.. did you even care to read the discussed topic?

                            Comment

                            • OooShiny
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • May 2013
                              • 184

                              Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                              Remember, every 4kg of the F-35 cost roughly as much as 1kg of gold, it would be wise to keep the weight as low as possible..
                              Interesting way of thinking about it.

                              Incidentally, every 1.3kg of Rafale costs the same as 1kg of gold. I'm sure if they keep escalating the price they can reach parity.

                              Comment

                              • hopsalot
                                Senior Member
                                • Aug 2012
                                • 3166

                                Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                Supersonic range.. did you even care to read the discussed topic?
                                ... and what is the Gripen NG's supersonic range?

                                Comment

                                • hopsalot
                                  Senior Member
                                  • Aug 2012
                                  • 3166

                                  Originally posted by OooShiny View Post
                                  Interesting way of thinking about it.

                                  Incidentally, every 1.3kg of Rafale costs the same as 1kg of gold. I'm sure if they keep escalating the price they can reach parity.
                                  So like MSphere to invent a fanboy measure of aircraft cost without considering that it makes his favorite planes look bad...

                                  Comment

                                  • MSphere
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Feb 2010
                                    • 8983

                                    Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                                    ... and what is the Gripen NG's supersonic range?
                                    We have discussed that quite extensively.. the Swiss eval scenario using Gripen D..
                                    Last edited by MSphere; 7th February 2016, 21:20.

                                    Comment

                                    • Loke
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2008
                                      • 3302

                                      Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                                      ... and what is the Gripen NG's supersonic range?
                                      Company test pilot Magnus Ljungdahl says the aircraft was flown to a speed of more than Mach 1.2 at 28,000ft (8,540m) above the Baltic Sea, and adds: "Without using afterburner I maintained the same speed until I ran out of test area."
                                      From: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...gripen-321428/

                                      The Gripen Demonstrator has demonstrated the capability to supercruise at Mach 1.2, and exceed Mach 1.6 on afterburner. Gripen engineers say that they have still to optimise the air intakes, which they expect will boost engine power by another 25%.
                                      http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/...VS4R6FJjP4QV5T

                                      Anyway; why do we care? supercruise is probably not very useful... nuff said.
                                      Last edited by Loke; 7th February 2016, 22:15.

                                      Comment

                                      • FBW
                                        FBW
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Dec 2011
                                        • 3295

                                        Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                        From: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...gripen-321428/



                                        http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/...VS4R6FJjP4QV5T

                                        Anyway; why do we care? supercruise is probably not very useful... nuff said.
                                        For the last time..... The Gripen Demo is not the Gripen E/F. I do not doubt that the E/F will have some capability to active supersonic speed without afterburner in some marginal way (Like a multitude of other fighters that could reach Mach 1.1-1.2 without 'burners). The operational utility of the E/F's capability in this regard is still to be determined. It is a bigger, heavier, aircraft than the modified Demo airframe.

                                        Comment

                                        • Loke
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jun 2008
                                          • 3302

                                          Originally posted by FBW View Post
                                          For the last time..... The Gripen Demo is not the Gripen E/F. I do not doubt that the E/F will have some capability to active supersonic speed without afterburner in some marginal way (Like a multitude of other fighters that could reach Mach 1.1-1.2 without 'burners). The operational utility of the E/F's capability in this regard is still to be determined. It is a bigger, heavier, aircraft than the modified Demo airframe.
                                          Gripen E does not fly yet, so the Demo is the closest we get for the time being. According to the latest rumors E will be somewhat heavier than the Demo, on the other hand:


                                          Gripen engineers say that they have still to optimise the air intakes, which they expect will boost engine power by another 25%.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X