Signis it me or does 20k pounds of thrust seem as Little underpowered for a aircraft that supposed to be 5th generation and come even remotely close to the Raptors performance? If its going to be stealthy it will need internal bays.
That means even higher thrust to weight. they cant be serious.
Its a very small jet, no much bigger than f-5 style.
Sign🙂 So you didnt no that?….Ge-404 IN 20 have Volvo components, so its licence the other way around.
You are really out there all the time….doesnt it getting awkward?
There is no big problem getting up the thust in any engine, getting reliable and low maintnance is a problem.
So the Kaveri still have a loooong way of prove itself..
SignI don’t know why you guys missed the “juiciest” part of the news report :-
“Its search even contains the Gas Turbine Research Establishment GTX-35VS Kaveri, still in development for India’s Aeronautical Development Agency Tejas light combat aircraft.“
It’s quite plausible actually. All their options like M-88 and RM-12 are in the 78 kN to 80 kN range. Kaveri is 81 kN engine and moreover, it is a flat-rated engine. SO, it does have a good chance of being selected by Japan.
Now, the question arises how does Japan expect to buy Kaveri, which is still under development in it’s own nation ? The answer is that IAF wants more from the Kaveri i.e. upto 85-88 kN (approx). It has already successfully demonstrated 81 kN of thrust.
Hence, compared to the GE-404 and M-88, Kaveri stands a very good chance of being selected. It’s cost is also likely to be much cheaper than these western engines.
as allways, you are a indian salesman..
the standard RM12(since 1989) have the same rate as Kaveri 81KN, this can be altered easily. There were a upgrade stage proposal to at least 90KN to Saab gripen. But it was cheaper for the gripen to go F414, so they went this way.
The M-88 have also defined upgrades at least to 90KN(M88-3), and i would not count on it stays there.
I firmly believe both Volvo and Snecma is way ahead.
Signwell, i have bigger screens in my Dynamic WT9, do i win? 🙂
SignSign,
being a system integrator is not the same thing as producing an aircraft. Without new orders SAAB will exit the fighter manufacturing business. I work for the aeronautic and automotive industry in the financial sector and I can tell you that its a huge burden to keep a production and assembly line under its optimal production level (mainly due to the huge fixed costs), let alone with no production at all.
Sweden is not planning to buy the NG for the moment. Instead they are planning a light upgrade to the existing fleet which will make more unlikely a major upgrade in the coming years. when you compare order backlog for other competitors the NG can’t compete. If the NG doesn’t get any export in the coming years it will be over for SAAB.
This is wishful thinking. Sweden is very unlikely to keep financing the gripen program the way other nations does for their fighter without any domestic productions. That is much more probably a one shot attempt to help SAAB remaining in the fighter business.
Without any further productions (export and/or domestic) SAAB will exit the fighter business industry. US is not Sweden and with thousands of F16 in service the parallel is not good.
at the moment i dont listning to you guestimates.
I am a projectmanager a well known company and have a good idea of things.
there will be no problems having support of the gripens until 2040.
New fighters will reopen production when needed, its a flexible productionline.
That house all kinds of products. Only 100 meters of final assembly as today. and can be minimized if needed.
the RnD have plenty of projects to deal with. The only part that not good at the moment is the civil subcontractor buisness to boeing and airbus, for obvius reasons. this is one did cost alot of new investments and to that alot of depreciation that plague this divison.
SignWhich weapon do they use that fit a two way datalink?
Nic
there are a french Meteor and a UK/rest of the world Meteor..
The french have a one way Mica link…(easier integration)
SignIf Saab is unable to get orders for the aeronotics division, in which the gripen program ( NG, C/D, E/F) represent the vast majority of income, they will have no backlog left at the horizon of 2015. They have been loosin 3 000 billion kr in the order backlog each year for the past 3 years and since they had no significant contract yet, things are not going to change.
.
3000 billion?! 😀
They are still upgrading systems for SweAF until 2040(and all others) and still producing Thai gripens. Believe me there be no problem staying in the buisness.
The problem arise for all europes aviation firms in the next generation fighter. There will probably be co-ops for cost sharing. But i still wonder why EF got so expensive in such a big co-op?!
SignGripen NG development is going to a good pace obviously. Its like a sprint while the rafale is doing a marathon already heading for the next step (5th batch).
The only unknown is whether the NG will be ever sold. Overall it offers a good performance/price mix and with some good arguments (customization, partnership etc). But I fear that for political reasons it will not be produced. At the end when a government put all his weight/influence there is perhaps little place for the NG unfortunately with the remaining competition left (Brazil, India, Switzerland).
How long SAAB will be able to keep investing and waiting is a decisive factor. It might be able to offer a competitive solution around 2012/2013 hoping for an export but I am less sure that its going to be as competitive in the 2015/18 time frame given that other programs benefit from domestic markets improvements. Many people see the rafale F3+, the SH or the NG as the end of aircrafts respective developments when it should just be the beginning from a export customer standpoint.
I see it as a race against the clock not to leave the fighter market. That is a bold bet from Sweden and Saab. Certainly there is many good news press release from the NG program to keep all gripen NG enthusiast happy. But if you take some distance from the daily news the real challenge remains : transforming a demonstrator without domestic market into an export success in order to remain a player on the market. Without this reality all this hype is hot air.
There is two visions about this development sprint : either you can say SAAB is optimistic about their aircraft or it can be viewed as a last attempt to remains on the market. In fact I think that both visions are not that contradictory.
My personal opinion is that the next three years will be decisive for the future of SAAB on the fighter market. They have a good product offering a good performance/price compromise but lack the political clout to make the difference in the end. That is why I am not so optimistic. The anecdotic good press release may act like a smoke screen for some but they should take a birds eye view of the situation instead of doing this perpetual pissing contest. Competition is already hard with two competitors in Brazil and Switzerland imagine with five in India…Especially on a political standpoint.
It is frustrating because you have to be very patient to come to a conclusion and I can understand the fact of hanging on to every press release and tracking the slightest positive sentence as a kind of drug or addiction.
If you really want to asses a situation without rounding in circles in sterile specs debate you really should take a bird eye view and take into account all factors.
If the gripen NG wins a first export that could be a positive trend/spiral but losing one could means the end. The perception from other air forces as being a viable program in the long run is very important. A risky bet from SAAB but I understand the core reasons : money, prestige, pride etc…
No, it does not…
The E/F upgrades to SweAF is based on the NG. I see no problem for SAAB staying on the market until 2040 at least.
To only have the SweAF as a customer have worked well in the past, today we have at least five AF. The thing is its a flexible company with big variety of products, even with the new branch civil security.
So there be no spare on making gripen even more successfull.
But i have to say Dassault as today really is in the hands of the french goverment with no sales abroad….and not as broad product portfolio.
The biggest owner Investor(to SAAB), have the buisness punch, instead of political. thats why the successful offsetsdeals.
SignWhat’s neuron then?
its a UCAV subsonic prototype bomber, not a 6 gen supersonic swing/omni role fighter.
But i love it anyway, its a good project for europe. And in my eyes, dassault cant just invite brazil without the others contractors concent. And thats not going to be easy. the project is already planed and is undergoing.
The next project will not any problems for brazil to co-op in.
SignThe facts are that the LM and Boeing engineers have decided that for the requirements given to them, that they prefer designs that don’t have canards, to achieve the results. It has nothing to do with experience, fear, or not wanting to look too European.
still its the same old proven mature concept.. thats been around since 1916.
and i dont think you have any real insites of why they choosen this path.
so, maybe for not seing the benefits? not proven enough? not fiting the requirements?
Nither of us have come over any data. Europeans still going canards, so is china. They see a benefit, and still do concepts that path (is really RCS a problem then?!).
US and russia does not.
Thats it?!
SignCo-development of 4+ gen technology would be useless, everyone serious is working on 6th gen (stealty UCAVs).
You would be better off buying an off the shelf product with full technology transfer in order to be able to make the system evolve as the FAB sees fit in the future without further involvement. Instead of focusing on co-development you should focus on gaining enough technological basis to undertake the MLU of the plane almost independantly. Working on technologies of the future is way better than working on technologies that are available on current fighters. And it would allow you to not pay the price of a brand new plane to update your planes, like the Indians have to do to upgrade their Mirage 2000 fleet.
Nic
So youre saying Gripen and Rafale systems will not updated until 2030?
no 6 gen have never been on any table…
SignDon’t flatter yourself. More like “is this person really worth my time?” Does it really make more sense to you that despite all their experience with canards, the US would choose to limit themselves just to be fashionable? Really?
Yes?!
US seems to not change a successful concept dated from 1917 Curtiss S-3.
It seems those who have it, do not want to change back(sweden and europe as followers), whose who do not have it seems to stay away (russia, us). thats it.
different recuirements?
Signhttp://www.defpro.com/news/details/14657/
little about the Gripen radar progress
SignSignatory found this, and posted it on his military photos gripen thread
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/14657/
They have got a long way in a short time thats for sure..
SignI’m not saying that the LCA has a smaller RCS than the Gripen. But you said that size has nothing to do with RCS which is a patently false statement unless you provide riders that clearly state that shaping is done in which case a large size may have a smaller RCS.
Both these aircraft are built largely of composites which are not big contributors to RCS. Both are single engined where the compressor face is shielded very well. Both have somewhat similarly sized canopies and cockpits (and cockpit reflection is a big RCS contributor) and neither seems to use gold film lined and treated canopies like ‘Have Glass’ F-16s do or the recent MiG-29Ks.
What makes you so sure that the Gripen has a lower RCS ? I cannot see any indication to prove either of them having a smaller RCS. What can you see that I cannot ?
Give us a number on LCA RCS so we all can go home 🙂
Sign In
