SignI hope the stealthy SAAB project works out for Sweden as it will keep a Gripen type of aircraft in production for the future. By the popularity of the current Gripen, there is obviously demand for an aircraft of it’s size and weight.
Besides the US and Russia, there is very little development on 5th gen fighters:
-Japan (internally developed stealth aircraft program in doubt-may be cancelled)
-S. Korea (same as Japan)
-India (joining Russia on a PAK-FA variant and possibly developing a medium weight stealthy fighter)
-China (developing a new 5th gen fighter but rumors place it at a bigger sized aircraft, like F-22, than a smaller one like what Sweden is proposing).Without counting the F-35, this new SAAB stealth design may be the only other option for a smaller stealth aircraft since it also sounds like Russia will not develop a lighter 5th gen aircraft and only produce the heavier PAK-FA.
—–JT—–
Its more like gripen NG:s, still it´s probably an rcs of under 0,1 m2. Sweden do not need stealth for its fighters or the price of them..right now..
Neuron will probably be the seed for next next generation….and that will be a all european platform..probably…
SignI was talking strictly BVR and currently the APG 80 should hold an edge over the Captor, the reports are varying according to F 16 Vs EF thread in the F 16 forum, when (and if) the EF gets an AESA it will be different.
When was the last long range IRST based kill :rolleyes:.
As for the Migs matching F 16s. The ROE here suited India, It may have been different if it was done in USA. Were the F 16s participated Block 50s weren’t they block 40 C/D ?
And stop saying Euro Canards…the advantage Rafale has over the Block 52s are slight at best according to our Greek friends, while the EF has a clear superiority.
would be nice to hear what the french pilots have to say about that 🙂
ofcourse the bias there own jet..
Also if so in which kind of engagement?
SignGood Point and remember more power is avialable from the F404……..
F414 you mean? that was not availible at birth time for RM12.
SignSwAF payed 190m USD for its 64 gripen C. Thats 26,5m USD(taxfree price :))
Thats 10% cheaper than expected.:eek:
http://www.fmv.se/WmTemplates/page.aspx?id=4489
SignI have heard nothing to suggest that SAAB wants to increase the Maximum Speed of the Gripen NG @ Altitude. Which, would be of very little benefit and only increase its already large RCS.
Really, to me the Gripen NG is much like the failed F-5G/F-20 Program. As the more capabilities you give it the more it just becomes another F-16. Which, defeats the advantages of a small and inexpensive fighter…………:(
Every thing else than F-35 or F-16 is failed in your opinion, so just shut up. Ng has a lot to prosper before its a failure. C/D has an RCS of 0.1m2 isnt to bad, the NG will be more optimized still.
The technology of NG will be transfered also to C/D in the future.
F-35 is the last in an era and has gotten lots of critical reviews allover so dont go there. And this is not the tread for that.
SignAny news of Rafale making to Aero india this time ?? French want fair deal in MMRCA but they just refuse to bring Rafale to India ,
typical french atitude i would say..:)
SignAlthough Mach .99 doesn’t sound as cool as M1.02, it aerodynamically isn’t the decisive mark. Interesting is if the aircraft can cruise behind its drag peak without reheat (the Gripen with M1.2ish doesn’t actually do that).
First aircraft able to do that was the Concorde to my knowledge, while this aircraft was tailored for it.
it was stated “over 1.2M” for the gripen. The drag peak of the plane differs with design. Some are before 1.0M some after.
SignYou can double-fold that numbers and nothing will change. The propulsion-system will set the limit like the transmission-system of your car.
The fixed inlet system is optimised for high subsonic to transonic, when it will “backfire” at supersonic. By that the former F-16 with J79 has the same top-speed like the last examples with GE132. LM has no intrest to change something about that by a regulated inlet, because the F-16 is not designed to cope with the heat stress starting above Mach 1,8. 😉
Ok, nice info, thanks, still the inlets is modified for gripen, so…maybe..:)
Signtracking range for fightersized (f-16 class) is for PS-05A(gripen) 120km not 90km.
tracking on ground is 90km(traffic)
Erieye is stated to see a “football” on 450km in perfect condition..(heard that from a engineer thats working with it, but i have no other reference on that)
SignWell Sign as I have always maintained the Gripen is my favourite for the MRCA after the F 16. I hope one of those jets win it.
I disagree about the datalink though, IAF would need something that works with its other aircraft like the MKIs. So may need customization in that aspect.
Dear MM11
I am not an aviation expert, if you can provide some information about its combat performance I will accept it.
Gripen has three kinds of datalinks.
link 16
TILDS
SATCOM
I dont think customization will be a problem…SAAB Microwave Systems and thales will help you on that..
SignI think the TWR given for F 16s with CFT include the weight of the CFTs, I am not sure but if anyone can shed light on this that would be good.
The Rafale is the only aircraft that has a chance to exceed the F 16 IN in multirole capability, but the relative price and other factors may give the Super Viper the edge.
The EF is the best air superiority aircraft of the bunch, but its poor A2G performance and lack of commitment to Captor E. Price etc will knock it out for sure.
The Gripen NG does not have anything over the F 16 IN. F 16 IN has the better radar and can match and exceed the Gripen in all other aspects, Perhaps the Gripen has better aerodynamic performance, but that’s hardly a big thing in today’s battlefields.
The American types have the widest range of weapons available and thats another aspect which would be hard to beat. 😀
Oh and the F 16 IN will exceed the upgraded Mirages in BVR. Situational Awareness Electronic Warfare etc. :dev2:
Gripen has it all, i think, over F-16 exept:
the weapons range avaible at the moment(only american)
Over those many years in service, combat experience.
Radarmodes and ranges etc. are classified so dont say F-16 has the upper hand.
Dont forget JA37 Viggen, tornado, and F-16 was born in the same era…
SignI suppose you mean single engined, as both fighters are available in two seat versions.
The APG 80 is a proven platform, and when will the Gripen’s AESA be ready ?
True but its unlikely to fly clean.
Under what load ? Super cruise Mach 1.2 etc is quite ineffective, this has been discussed to death in the supercruising thread.
from that article ‘Enhanced High Thrust Engine
The F-16IN offers the highest thrust engine in the competition, the General Electric F110-132A. It has 32,000 pounds of thrust with an unprecedented record of safety, reliability, maintainability and durability.The F110 incorporates the latest technology, including full authority digital engine control, for maximum fuel efficiency and performance.’
when you consider F 16INs internal fuel and range, consider the CFTs as well, as they are going to be flying with them most of the time. It says the AC can fly from Bangalore to Leh without IFR.Disagree because CFTs are going to do the job, pylons are going to be for weapons, max weight including CFTs.
True, but Lockheed states in an article i posted before that the aircraft retains its agility. And I believe them, they are going to get thing here for testing so won’t make sense to make such claims if they cannot back it up.
You blow me over with that one. Excellent Data Link ? All NATO jets use Link 16 i guess so how is one excellent and the other note. The IAF has its own Datalink and that will be the one integrated into F16 IN.
Block 60 has excellent situational awareness and sensor fusion.
1. Aesa will be ready in time.. dont you worry. Both thales and Saab microwave systems are quite competent.
2. Data link of the gripen is known to be the best in the world, with even with rawdata comparision between the PS-05A. And other modes that link 16 even kan dream of.
3.LM will always state that, ofcouse higher wingloading have an impact, maybe not much but it has.
4. The supercruise of the gripen was at 28000ft, nearly half the height of the f-22 supercruise and it was not 1.2M it was “over” 1.2M. A single seater predicted to go even faster.
5. Thust to weight contest is won by gripen even thou the F110 is a more powerfull engine.
Signthe only thing funny is your own ignorance. lets look at the real facts.
J-10
Radar = KLJ 1 Chinese
Engines = WS10A Chinese
Air to air = short range PL9 Chinese, long range PL-12 Chinese
Air to ground = PJ9 Chinese, YJ9K ChineseGripen
Radar = PS05 (Swedish British)
Engines = take your pic F404 variant or F414 either way its American
Air to air = Sidewinder, AMRAAM, both American,
Air to ground = paveway, maverick? both American, only the RBS15 is Swedish.you got one aircraft with all of its key components built by the home country, versus one that is reliant on foreign countries. There is no Gripen w/o American engines, British radar, and American weapons. So yes China is far more successful in developing all aspects of a 4th generation fighter.
The radar is about 1% british..
The RM12 is 40% american
Amraam will be replaced by meteor
Some standoff AoG is swedish
SignWould also be interesting to know the new topspeed..
With bigger intakes, more fuel and 25-35 more power!
Could it be 2.5M?!
Would be damed if it was specified as 2.0M+..
SignScooter for not missning your “what?! do you have a reference on that?!?”
i give you this, and its from LM, so it just have to be right, right?
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/010308_Saab9LVCMS.html
wounder what SAAB say if the get another subcontract from LM. I think NO WAY! We dont want your money!? 🙂
Sign In
