SignCome to think of it, what makes anyone think if they get F-16 or Gripen A/B that they also get amraam? Would the Gripen A/B have to go the Derby/Darter-U routes? Would seem the MiG-35/JF-17 mix would be a better strategy because the former options give bvr capability. The real bind is the armaments; MiG-35 would use r-77, but the JF-17 would only support sd-10.
Why not meteor on a gripen A/B and a upgraded PS-05A Radar to handle the extended range? Thou the derby/darter seems more viable.
Maybe A/B:s are given for free as aid? They only stand around anyway.
SignWell, first while the Gripen has more individual orders than say the Super Hornet. If, you add them all up. They won’t even come closed to the total number of Super Hornets produced. Regardless, the problem with either the Super Hornet or Rafale or any type on the market today. Is they are all becoming obsolete with the advent of 5th Generation Types like the F-22, F-35, PAK-FA, and J-XX……………..As a matter of fact except for 5th Generation Types its very hard to win any large orders at all. Even small ones in the case of the very capable Rafale! Really, the only possibility is India’s forthcoming MMRCA and only because no 5th Generation Type is available or allow for export! So, the Gripens value per se is having less impact all he time.
First of all, this thread isnt about gripen, and second the Koreaoffer i SAAB:s 5th gen offer. Be serios about it, you havent proven anything in in the last 10 posts, and you have not data to rely on, so just be it..
You have no knowledge what so ever over Saab designs, so just quit. You cant just compare fighters only based on your prejudice thoughts.
SignSAAB wins “with a alarming rate”. Sorry, I would like to know what order you are talking about??? As a matter of fact the Gripen NG has yet to win a single order (even from the Swedish Air Force!)…………and the likely hood of the Standard Gripen winning any more are getting dimmer by the day. But you maybe right about the case closed part.;)
Please to get a hold of your self. You have no data to support anything!? please do get!?…Gripen is just in the beginning of its lifspan fanboy(>2040). So please back of, or add som real info.
And the only order to date that gripen lost to f-16 is Poland. So thats leave us 1:3 ,and thats not offcourse counting the shortlistwins. If i was MB director i would say “alarming rate!?”
SignHow many Gripen have been exported as of today! Just a small number and vast majority of your list is in quote “Competion”??? Which, means nothing unless they win! Even if they win its up to the US to allow the export of US Property. Sorry, you are the one with no idea………..with all do respect.;)
Please…You still dont get it fanboy! why are you getting of the subject and repeating yourself?
Your point was, that SAAB would not be aloud to win over american fighters, i proved you wrong, and they still win with a alarming rate..:)
And they are still allowed to export gripens with some american technology(no ToT for american tech thou), thats part of the early buisness contracts which US goverment has signed, not up for them now?!, to all countries thats not blacklisted…..sorry but you have not data to support your case but i do. Case closed.
And for the US as for the french its a win-win situation. A gripen deal is a win deal even for them.
SignSorry, you are the one missing the point. The US isn’t going to Export Technology or Hardware to SAAB. If, by doing so that is used to win a export sale over a US Product. The same of course could be said of Europe as well…..
So you are saying thats not done today and workin? or ever? You seem to have no idea?!
Try to see how thing are working today in the busniess.
SAAB gripen is to still winning contracts over f18/f16 and maybe F-35 in the future so, cant seem to find any data to support your case..just the opposite!
Please look into fighter deals in:
Czech rep.(won over F-16)
Hungary(won over F-16)
South africa(won over ??)
Thailand(won over F-16)
Croatia(in competion with f-16)
India(in competion with f-16)
Denmark(in competion with f-35)
Switzerland(shortlisted over F18)
Norway(in competion with f-35)
Netherlands(in competion with f-35)
Brazil(shortlisted over F16)
Bulgaria(in competion with f-16)
Romania(in competion with f-16)
Slovakia(in competion with f-16)
And still SAAB is a part of EU and Europe 😉
SignMIG-29 is even cheaper as it is already there and they have factory and know how to modernize them. Neither Ukraine has the money nor West is willing to invest in them. So no chance of Western types in UKraine. Russians with alot of money can literally buy that new Western fighter from UKraine. UKraine cannot control its own people. And i highly doubt Obama if elected is going to spend Tax payer money in UKraine. Only GW Bush can make bankrupt decision. Forget about Western EU.:D
UKraine will have little choice left except for fully integrating with Russian economic system. Bankrupt West cannot support it. Those days are gone.
Why would Obama or any one else for that matter, need to spend any money selling old inventory? thats called earning money?!
And controling the people isnt part of the free world of thinking 😀
Forget about the russia, the old bear is about to turn ulgy 😀
SignWell, just look to the Gripen………….without US and European Support. It would have never happened. Also, as for GE Exporting F-414’s to Japan or South Korea. There may not be a law per se. Yet, if the engine was going into a aircraft not of US origin. The US could and would likely ban it from export. Hardly anything new………..I doubt the UK, Italy, Spain, or Germany have a problem selling Typhoons to country “X”. Yet, that doesn’t mean they would approve selling enignes out of the Typhoons to a third party selling to the very same country. Even if its friendly country……….
You are missing the point, SAAB use subcontractors to a big extent. thats there way of business.. That´s why the are so cheap and can minimize risk to that big extent.
The thing is that, things like subcontractors are already acounted for. Otherwise they cant make a proposal?!
If US gov. dont like it, they go to someeone else, and thats not good for american economy..
Thats just what happend with the gripen AESA radar..
Rayteon vs Thales. and its not over just yet.
SignWith all do respect SAAB would need considerable help from the US and/or Europe. Also, just because the US has approve the GE F-404 or F-414 in the recent past. Doesn’t mean it would approve similar requests in the future. Especially, if they would compete with say the F-35…………….
With all respect how would you now? Need Help? Is LM the only knowing how to do things? Just because LM says that, it isnt just true..
If you think thats true i will certainly say you are a uncureble LM/F35 fanboy…
And for youre info, to date, they already competing with th F-35..for example in Norway.
So please be a little more humble in your statements..
There are a few in the world knowing how to build a new fighterjet and deliver them, SAAB is one of them, no need distrust them, they been around for more than 50 years and just doing so.
I say they dont have any problem to deliver…
They were first out with a 4:th generation swing-role fighter in the world which they are about to upgrade for the third time, and now the proposed a new fighter. This is how any business works, and this been working the past 50 years.
There are no law that says that GE could not deliver f414 to Japan or South korea, only china, russia some african countries etc…
Those nations are so called “blacklisted for militaryexport”..so the US goverment cant stop it from happening if they arent about to blacklist japan/korea för military export, and then they have to buy russian fighters 😀
And if thats the case Saab will integrate an another willing contractor(anything goes in concept study state).
Not any of the “new” technology like the airframe are designed in the US what i know of..
This proposal is a twin engine, two pilots, optimized for air superiorty(thou A2G with external stores), stealth concept, so its more likely to compete with F-22 and PAK-FA….than F-35…probably cheaper and and not as agile (no thustvectoring) but still gen 5 in terms of avionics, sensors and airframe.
SignSomething along the lines of JF-17 wouldn’t be a bad option if they were using the MiG-35 as their frontline fighter and they could share engine commonality. Otherwise they may as well go F-16 for the whole fleet.
Chinese fighters are to risky and to close to russian tech… and is have no political meaning…i think a eurocanard or used F-16s would fit better…
Also i think there are some used gripen A/B as a real cheap solution.
SignSaab is capable but only would outside help! I doubt the Americans for one would with two competing 5th Generation Designs would help.
They are as capable of delivering as the have always been. The way to do it is risk spreading with there subcontractors, as they usually do…no need for any american/french/british law involvement. There is no problem exporting for example RM12 or the F414G to south korea or japan.
The only need a customer or two, for the spreading the cost.
SAAB is using modular designs, so many subsystems are co-developed with gripen NG. The new thing is the stealth airframe, the internal weaponstores..and a few more things..
They also adding new things to the table, canard stealth…according to SAAB the way the canards are stealthy is patented..
SignWouldnt this be something for Japan
A Saab proposal to South Korea..
http://img389.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ksaab78xp4.jpg
http://img172.imageshack.us/my.php?i…saab108dh8.jpg
http://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?i…saab248is4.jpg
Maybe a colaboration with Korea?
SignThe MiG-29M2 prototype was powered by RD-33 Series 3 and the aircraft was offered with that engines in the past, now as the RD-33MK is available it’s very likely that these engines would be used if the MiG-29M is selected by someone. The new MiG-29M is virtually the same as the MiG-29K in terms of flight controlls and aerodynamics. The MiG-35 is based on this NEW MiG-29M! If you are incapable of understand that then let it be.
BECAUSE they share common engines and airframe. There might be slight differences, but they aren’t that great at all in that direction. AND NO THESE AREN’T ASSUMPTIONS BUT DATA GIVEN.
I never said the MiG-29K is using TVC. Are you grabing comments from sky or what?
Ok some figures for Gripen and Typhoon only to clear up differences:
JAS 39C/Typhoon
TWR with full internal fuel: 0.9:1/1.15:1
Wing load factor with full internal fuel: 365,72 kg/m² / 319 kg/m²
Top speed: Mach 1.8/>Mach 2
Supercruise: Mach 1.08 (not really supercruise) / Mach 1.2+ (both with AAMs and at least 1 drop tank)
Ceiling: 14000 m / >18000 m
Climb rate: to 10000 m in 2 min / to 12800 m in 1.5 min
Acceleration: Mach 0.5-1 in 30 sec (unspecified altitude)/ Mach 0.3-1 <30 sec (at sea level)These few specs should make clear that the Typhoon’s performance is significantly higher than that of the Gripen. The Gripen was designed as a light weight, cheap multirole fighter. The Typhoon was designed as a high performance AA fighter with secondary AG role. The requirements for both aircraft were totally different and so are the aircraft.
And on aerodynamics, weight… There is no single factor responsible for the whole thing.
******** we speak about flight performance and aerodynamics not about combat here. Again you mix things up and make senseless comments which say nothing and have nothing to do with the topic.
Ah yes and that is the reason why Sukhoi selected canards for the Su-27M, because they degraded the aircraft’s performance:rolleyes:
some data are wrong…
gripen ceiling approx. 17000m(operate normaly on 16000m)
supercruise with droptank and four AAM. 1.1 mach(RM12)
Topspeed 2.0 mach(RM12)
And this way of comparing will make the F-35 look really bad….
this is more like comparing oldschool dogfighters.
Then again i would like you to take into account the time it takes to load the EF for AoA before even start the climb to 12800m in 1,5 min. 😉
SignMy point was and is that the JAS 39A/B which entered service in 1996 were not as technologically advanced as is the Rafale, Typhoon or JAS 39C/D which entered service after 2000. I didn’t said that there were no advances over aircraft like the F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 and I didn’t insist that the JAS 39 isn’t a 4th generation fighter! If you feel pissed by facts its not my problem
Facts are laid out, and i´m not pissed..dont know why i should be.
The fact tells us that 39A was a swingrole 4-gen fighter in the 90:s which lacking some sensorpower of todays state of the art standards, but was state of the art back then.
Multirole/swingrole is what eurofighter just becomed, about 12 years after..am i right?
Signwhere are the fighter discusion?
This thread has turned ugly, and jet again has russian fanboys pointed out there megalomania ambitions…
Rule the world without exeptions. Let you fellow nearbours be. Just because stalin planted russians everywere does not make russia the ruler of the former CCCP..
Hope the every nation in the region joins nato and be free under there own rule, and cool of the dangerous russian ambitions.
Sign‘Not sure that’s 100% correct, Sign. I think Gripen is pitch stable until the vortex lift kicks in…. probably around 6 to 8 degrees AoA. In level flight you don’t see the canards twitching like the Eurofighter’s do. Even when the vortex lift starts we see Gripen’s canards pitch down, and below the aircraft’s centreline, but I think they still have a positive AoA, ‘cos the aircraft centreline has a larger positive AoA then the canards ‘aircraft negative’ (I think the FCS allows up to 28 degrees aircraft AoA, since the Stockholm crash). It’s ‘relaxed stability’ rather than ‘instability’. If you have a totally pitch instable canard aircraft the canards have to make downforce, and that would be inefficient.
Signatory seems to be more Gripen nerdy than me, so he might confirm this. 🙂
Gripen is a very clever piece of design! It is underestimated in my view, just like F-5 was about 200 years ago! It is a great example that small countries CAN develop their own very good aircraft. UK could too., and there are huge spin-offs in education, engineering experience and prestige, IMO, as well as some strategic safety in being capable of making your own equipment.
F-5 couldnt do as much as its bigger brothers of the time, because of the electronics hardware took so much space back in those days. Today is another thing, power can be very compact, and the power is more and more depending on software instead of hardware.
Gripen is as capable as its bigger brothers, and can in some areas surpass them.
So its a big difference now and then..
The biggest development problem with the 39A, was the instability. There were alot skeptism about it, and some wanted to load a big deadweight in the randome to get rid of the problems.
The twiching is done more than 100 times a sec. and gripen as relativly large canards(controlsurface) which is also closed coupled. So its a big control difference from the eurofighter.
So you cant really tell from the twitching how instable a plane is, but how hard the system works to control it. Why the system works hard is a sum of many things, like controlsurface effectivness(as placement, angle, and area), laminar/turbulent flow over it, controlsystem stability and sensitvity, air density, plane instability etc.
When it comes to placement i think, correct me if ím wrong, gripen is more effective in correcting pitch and yaw, because of the at least 80 degree angle to pitch a yaw movement. “it can easier move air in the opposite direction to the direction of the instability”.
Euro has almost 45 degrees angle so to move the same amount it also need to push some air sideways and use higher angle(thou its more forward mounted to compensate for that maybe).
the 45 degree thing probably have another advantage…that the europeople thought about.. that i dont no of. Probably rolls like a sharm.
Have only seen that type of canard once before on a f-16 test plane.
I think instant turnrate is more of a way of measure instability (and large controlsurfaces).
So maybe its easier to look att those numbers.
Think that gripen has 30 degres/s as well as the rafale(Both at its best, in a defined speed).
Havent seen any data from the euro.
Anyone has a cloue?
Sign In
