Funny, on how you questin ToT on American Types. Yet, SAAB couldn’t have a problem selling those same system in a SAAB product…………..:eek:

No?! never has been?!
All profitdriven companies wants to sell, so.. even subcontractors..:eek:
I told you so many times, i cant remember but you seems to forget. Even LM has subcontrators. And to dassault and EADS, SAAB is one of the subcontractors..
Even in rare cases SAAB is a subcontractor to LM 🙂

I’m afraid you are off the mark as to how a gas turbine engine works, especially the thrust nozzle.
A normal convergent thrust nozzle is in general set to a point where the gas-flow is “choked” that means that the gas velocity is Mn 1.0. If you wish to accelerate it further then you need a con-di (convergent-divergent) nozzle.
Because the a/c is travelling Mn 1.5 doesn’t mean that the gas-flow rearwards exceeds Mn 1.0, perhaps you should read up on Mach, start with the definition.
Also increasing the pressure in the rear of the engine will only make it stall/surge, once the compressor itself chokes.
There are an awful lot of good books on how gas turbines work. I would suggest you read one.

First you tell me im wrong and then you tell me that you need a con-di to accel the flow. 🙂 that what i said?
the rearward flow is relative to the aircraft not the surounding air.. so you need a higher speed to be effective in higher a/c speed. The stall is depends of how big the restriction is, how much the engine can cope with it, and the static pressure. Dont mean to restrict it as to that point. An oldschool jet engine without the fan will probably give you a higher speed of the flow, jet a smaller mass.
I have read those stuff for years. even in university, even thou it was not yesterday..

Vail point…………..do you have a source that dispells that not problems could occur. Over third party technology used in the Gripen???

Do you have source in the matter, that overrule Saab official statment?

Can you tell me what the exact range and max supercruise speed of the F-22 Raptor are? It’d be helpful if you could, if you’re trying to compare it with another aircraft’s performance. If the AW&ST article is correct, then the F-22 can supercruise at Mach 1.5 for 41 minutes, which would fall into the USAF’s reasoning that it(the Raptor) isn’t just a little bit better than legacy fighters. Another thing to consider is that if the 41 minute figure is correct, the speed may actually be higher as the Raptor has demonstrated M1.82 supercruising. All this is speculation of course, but….food for thought.

it seems that F-22 dont need A/B..
I think that the F-22:s nozzles make all the difference.. to make the high excaust speed needed (effective in high speed) without the afterburner you have to have a good restriction in the backend. This for creating a high pressure in the backend. The pressure accelerates the escaping excaust even more.
The normal nozzle as F-16, Gripen or even F-35 have, dont seem to be able to restrict the flow that much, therefore not as fueleffcient or fast in supercruise.
as an example:
The speed of the excaust at takeoff moves 1,5 mach faster backwards than a plane at 1,5 mach.. the speed must be compensated.
So if you have an engine that only have the excaust speed of 1,5 mach, all thust is gone at 1,5M speed of the airplane. Still the engine burns as much fuel. At standstill that engine could even be as effective as making a VTOL, because is shuffles a bigger mass of air instead of smaller mass with speed.

Also a low by-pass should also increase the efficency in hi speeds due to higher temps and pressure to compensate for a not so good nozzle restriction. thou lower efficency at lower speed.

Do you follow?

I am generally in favour of the F 16IN or the Girpen, A single engined fighter that can be inducted in larger numbers than the initial 126. Say 200-300.

There are reports of a split order between the Gripen and SH, to create a High Lo mix.

Ante_climax, any more info of those reports?

gripen india…
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/gripen-offers-india-technology-for-multi-role-fighter-jets_100148144.html

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2009/saab_opens_office_in_india.htm

I didn’t know your Swedish were so eager on your national companies.
Volvo did a smart job in finding a balance between workshare and sourcing aborad.
There is a reason why Volvo always used a foreign engine as basis.
With help and support from the manufacturer, and useful workshare agreements, they will add to the overall effort, earn money, create jobs and keep some capability they can sell to the world. That is not that if Sweden wanted a new 20000lbs low-bypass turbo-fan, Volvo could design and produce it completely on its won.

General Electric could.

Like i said, if they wanted they could. Ofcourse they dont have it all at the start of such project. Also Volvo biggest nisch material/manufactural knowhow(metalurgical) and also controlsystems. Thats why RR, and GM is in some way also depending on Volvo.
To be a player in this field you have to have your own nisch, otherwise GE or RR wont be knocking on your door.

By the way: Germany could build an engine, doesn’t do it for economic reasons. Sweden probably couldn’t do it, that’s correct.
.

Sweden or Volvo AERO is most capabel. It´s a cost benefit, less risky, and much faster to refine, a highly developed engine like the F404-F414.
Also lots of the new stuff in the F414 comes from the RM12 or refined from it.
like FADEC, flameholder, birdstrike rubustness designs.
On the civil market, Volvo AERO is a big subcontractor to both GE and RR. Also a contractor in rocketengine department like the enginenozzles to Ariane 5.
So, no problem here, but they dont see the need. 120000 flight hours(RM12) without a single failure is one other benefit of the designsharing..