Read the forum code of contact
By: - 29th September 2016 at 04:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen is a small airplane and not in the same league as Typhoon Rafale or J-10.
Gripen is best compared to Tejas F/A-50 or JF-17.
And Gripen E is no exception. It adds meager LO treatments which other Gen 4 jets started to use in the mid-1980s.
By: - 29th September 2016 at 08:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the E version seems to have more range than both, can super cruise faster than Raf[
I like Gripen but both of these things are wrong.
By: - 29th September 2016 at 09:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I like Gripen but both of these things are wrong.
depends, math suggest gripen E out ranges EF significantly and rafale slightly in A2A configuration,
but will be inferior to both with heavy loads.
on the rafale M1.4 SC, i dont buy it, simple as that, its a repeated myth IMO,
i would think it can do around M1.2
By: - 29th September 2016 at 15:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen is a small airplane and not in the same league as Typhoon Rafale or J-10.
Gripen is best compared to Tejas F/A-50 or JF-17.
And Gripen E is no exception. It adds meager LO treatments which other Gen 4 jets started to use in the mid-1980s.
We all know Gripen is a light weight with a sensor package in the league of the best medium weights, great trolling though, to contiue the djcross/JSR line, I would like say Gripen is actually faster than the F86 or a cessna but inferior to 1960' Tech SR71..
By: - 29th September 2016 at 17:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I love the Gripen and it has several real world advantages (purchase costs, operating costs, maintenance requirements, serviceability and STOL to name but five)
The Swedes seem to have been sensor-fusing before anybody thought of a buzz word for it
I'm even convinced that in a clean or minimum load configuration it will have some kinematic advantages
But in terms or load, range and persistence the E is still a light (or light-medium) fighter. So doesn't address the same market or role as the big boys. It does do what it's intended to do very well.
By: - 30th September 2016 at 03:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I love the Gripen and it has several real world advantages (purchase costs, operating costs, maintenance requirements, serviceability and STOL to name but five)The Swedes seem to have been sensor-fusing before anybody thought of a buzz word for it
I'm even convinced that in a clean or minimum load configuration it will have some kinematic advantages
But in terms or load, range and persistence the E is still a light (or light-medium) fighter. So doesn't address the same market or role as the big boys. It does do what it's intended to do very well.
Radar set will be praised comparing to the Rafale in its present configuration.
Also a Gripen A or C can outmaneuver many aircraft.
For the E, I would like to remind the reader that it STILL doesn't exist, hasn't fly and wasn't combat tested. It a long shot to before we will be able to have a rational comparison.
And by the way, personally I would drop it. Too long, too few or too far from core customer needs. Plenty of new things to build for the Swedish industry to settle on such residually imaginative design (airframe).
By: - 30th September 2016 at 03:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Didn't the Gripen E get heavier than expected or sth?
By: - 30th September 2016 at 08:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For the E, I would like to remind the reader that it STILL doesn't exist, hasn't fly and wasn't combat tested. It a long shot to before we will be able to have a rational comparison
Actually as I am sure you know the first Gripen E was unveiled this spring -- however you are right that it hasn't flown yet.
By: - 30th September 2016 at 08:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Didn't the Gripen E get heavier than expected or sth?
At one point Saab presented a "Gripen NG" that had an empty weight of 7200 kg. However the Gripen E that Brazil and Sweden is going for has an empty weight of 8,000 kg. However the design has grown in size since the 7,200kg figure was first mentioned, so I am not sure if it right to say that it is "heavier than expected".
Here is the latest fact sheet: http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/pdf-files-download-section/facts/gripen-e-fact-sheet--en.pdf
At 8 tons it is still in the "light fighter" category, quite comparable to the Mirage 2000 (6% longer, 6% shorter wingspan, 7% higher empty weight than the Mirage 2000). What is somewhat disappointing is that max MTOW has not grown more, MTOW is 16,500 kg, 3% less than the Mirage 2000 with an MTOW at 17,000. OTOH considering the size of the fighter it is probably enough.
By: - 30th September 2016 at 10:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I like Gripen but both of these things are wrong.
I'll second that. Check out the very low TWR.
By: - 30th September 2016 at 10:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
depends, math suggest gripen E out ranges EF significantly and rafale slightly in A2A configuration,
but will be inferior to both with heavy loads.on the rafale M1.4 SC, i dont buy it, simple as that, its a repeated myth IMO,
i would think it can do around M1.2
And here's proof. In Swiss evals the Typhoon was praised for its supercruise, attained M1.4 with whatever load (M1.5 according to Austrians). Rafale was not. Enough said.
By: - 30th September 2016 at 10:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That document says the speed was a strong point for the Eurofighter.. It never speaks about speed of Rafale as they put forward other strong points that look obviously more important to them: to put it simply: you have zero data to say anything about Rafale's speed except that with what it has (whatever that may be) it was able to fulfill all the missions required
By: - 30th September 2016 at 10:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
depends, math suggest gripen E out ranges EF significantly and rafale slightly in A2A configuration,
but will be inferior to both with heavy loads.
I have no difficulty believing that Gripen E/F has impressively long legs with light loads, comparable to the larger Eurocans, but that was not the claim.
on the rafale M1.4 SC, i dont buy it, simple as that, its a repeated myth IMO,
i would think it can do around M1.2
I have never heard Rafale associated with a claimed Mach 1.4 supercruise. Mach 1.4 for Typhoon, yes. I do recall reading of Mach 1.2 for Rafale.
With weight gain since the Gripen Demo, the production E/F is apparently incapable of supercruise with the standard F414. Future supercruise prospects depend on someone funding GE's development roadmap for the engine, which nobody appears eager to do.
By: - 30th September 2016 at 11:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
More countries? Just S.Africa and Thailand as Czech Republic and Hungary are actually leasing them. So with Saudi Arabia, Austria and just recently Oman and Kuwait Typhoon sold more.
Said so seem me that swedes had actually exploited well the advantage of having introduced their own fighters well before the other, using the budget allocations freed after the end of its deliveries into redesigning it completely instead of just adding new components to the existing frames like the others are actually doing.
So they actually have used advancement in materials and structural design to drammatically increase "a la MiG-35" the fuel load without a proportional increase if plane's weight, has a brand new engine installed, more hardpoint and so on.
Add to that the neaar introduction of an "heavy" plane like the F-35 as the new NATO multirole standard fighter and you would eagerly see a potential enourmous market niche for it...
By: - 30th September 2016 at 11:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With weight gain since the Gripen Demo, the production E/F is apparently incapable of supercruise with the standard F414. Future supercruise prospects depend on someone funding GE's development roadmap for the engine, which nobody appears eager to do.
Source?
I believe it still says "super-cruise" in one of the latest brochures from Saab -- having said that, IMHO this is mainly a marketing stunt and probably of very limited tactical value since the SC is limited to a very light a2a load, and probably limited to 1.2M or so. In some very few instances it may come in handy but it is not exactly the main selling point...
By: - 30th September 2016 at 11:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have no difficulty believing that Gripen E/F has impressively long legs with light loads, comparable to the larger Eurocans, but that was not the claim.I have never heard Rafale associated with a claimed Mach 1.4 supercruise. Mach 1.4 for Typhoon, yes. I do recall reading of Mach 1.2 for Rafale.
With weight gain since the Gripen Demo, the production E/F is apparently incapable of supercruise with the standard F414. Future supercruise prospects depend on someone funding GE's development roadmap for the engine, which nobody appears eager to do.
weight is only remotely related to speed, unlike acceleration & turn performance, ,
as in, lift induced drag is only part of total drag that will determine top speed at a given thrust,
when drag equals thrust is the point when it stop accelerate, a 10% increase in lift drag is not a 10% increase in total drag,
the higher the speed, the less percentage of total drag is made up of lift drag
there is no reason to assume SC below M1.2
By: - 30th September 2016 at 12:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That document says the speed was a strong point for the Eurofighter.. It never speaks about speed of Rafale as they put forward other strong points that look obviously more important to them: to put it simply: you have zero data to say anything about Rafale's speed except that with what it has (whatever that may be) it was able to fulfill all the missions required
So they only mentioned it for the Eurofighter and deliberately ignored the Rafale having the same capability and then gave it 7 instead of 9 for performance?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u9A1B1CJxwY/TziFDQ6i_YI/AAAAAAAACYw/Zw1pk2MaDoQ/s1600/Swiss_eval_AP1.png
It's very clear that there are a number of Rafale fanbois here.
By: - 30th September 2016 at 12:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
weight is only remotely related to speed, unlike acceleration & turn performance, ,
as in, lift induced drag is only part of total drag that will determine top speed at a given thrust,
when drag equals thrust is the point when it stop accelerate, a 10% increase in lift drag is not a 10% increase in total drag,
the higher the speed, the less percentage of total drag is made up of lift drag
there is no reason to assume SC below M1.2
The brochure says M1.1 only for Gripen E, which is effectively not really a supercruise capability.
http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen/proud-to-be-brazilian/the-fighter/
By: - 30th September 2016 at 13:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
all 3 eurocanards are out of transonic region by M1.1 which makes it effectively SC,
M1.1+ is with drop tank
By: - 30th September 2016 at 13:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
all 3 eurocanards are out of transonic region by M1.1 which makes it effectively SC,
M1.1+ is with drop tank
Nope. Also doesn't say how many, so it could just be wingtip AAMs, zero drag index.
super-cruise performance of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air weapons.
It's not really genuine sc, because you add some more stores, or you fly in hot weather or slightly thicker air and it's subsonic. I also wouldn't want to wait for a Gripen E to crack M1.0 on dry thrust.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 29th September 2016 at 04:04
the plain version ended up being exported by non-partner countries than raffie and yugofighter (but ths one still leads in overall produced).
the E version seems to have more range than both, can super cruise faster than Raf, carries the same meteor, all while being cheaper to acquire and operate.
did the Gripen E finally win over the Eurocanards as Europe's best Su-35 killer?