SignRadar again..
Yes i know thales AESA antenna(not backend), and yes i know more then most about the competion.. time will tell…and i´ll be right. 😎
The problem for Thales is that they are a generation behind(in Fighter AESA) some of those out there(maybe you can figure this one out:rolleyes:).
You just cant say that “rafale match the SU better?” i say you dont have any arguments, and dont i believe you until i stand corrected.
Just like a gripen pilot, the rafale pilot dont want a SU in close combat. They both would just shoot down the big bird meteorvise BVR, and make use of the netrification/sensors of there fighters. And again Gripen NG will be better at it with its more powerful radar(if im right), and Gripen NG can go faster so(and truly supercruise).. And maybe the LO features adds up for rafale, but i havent seen any data of the RCS reduction.
Maybe im not updated in Rafale as much, then help me get the numbers right!
Ok, MIDAS can really do that same stunt? To date in F2? do you have a source?
thou not swap radar rawdata?
So Rafale F3 does not have a scheduled engineupgrade for france? or in F4?
Ok, so let me put the nerworking in simple terms:
So you say Midas is as capable? so why does SAAB even bother to:
first, keep the TIDLS in NG
two, add MIDAS (if you ask me, to fight well together with your nato friends)
Three bother to add even more netrification with Satcom??!
So Gripen NG has Link16, TIDLS, MIDAS, Satcom.
And rafale has Link16 and MIDAS.
Which fighter has most hardware/bandwith and possibility to be the most netrific fighter?
If you say Rafale, you just won the fanboy of the year award..:eek:
Yes, again Rafale is wonderful in one wave action, it really excels. But the time on the ground, the inflexiblility with larger landingstrips plus probably a lot higher MTBF(especially as you say, The french does not excel at engines). No HOT engineswap, Hot fuel and so on. No 10 minuts pitstops here..
In this case you cant say rafale is better in multible wave CAS, and just refer to the “big load”. With 6,3t MTOW, especially when taking of takeoff and land in less than 600m*9m, is also Gripen NG is also “amazing”.
SO, if you have to look at the math.
If a conflict starts 30 minuts away from your nearest landing strip, and assume that rafale can land there :D. And the planes have the mission to deliver GBU-12:s at highest rate.. if we skip the part of MTBF and the speeddifference, then the maths is as follows.
Gripen NG Rafale F3
time to theater 30 min time to theater 30 min
time/bomb 5 min time/bomb 5 min
Total bombtime 40 min Total bombtime 50 min
time to fly home 25 min time to fly home 25 min
capacity 8 min capacity 10 min
time to land/refuel/rearm/takeoff 10 min time to land/refuel/rearm/takeoff 30 min
time per wave 118 min time per wave 150 min
gripen waves 15 waves 12
Delivered bombs 120 Delivered bombs 120
Total time 29,5 Hours Total time 30 Hours
After about 30 hours Gripen has delivered 120 GBU-12 class bombs in 15 waves.
The same time Rafale has delivered also 120 in 12 waves!?.
This is a result of not being in the air!
I you extrapolate this to approx. 88 hours then
time to theater 30 min time to theater 30 min
time/bomb 5 min time/bomb 5 min
Total bombtime 40 min Total bombtime 50 min
time to fly home 25 min time to fly home 25 min
capacity 8 min capacity 10 min
time to land/refuel/rearm/takeoff 10 min time to land/refuel/rearm/takeoff 30 min
time per wave 118 min time per wave 150 min
gripen waves 45 waves 35
Delivered bombs 360 Delivered bombs 350
Total time 88,5 Hours Total time 87,5 Hours
Anyone that tends to disagree on the stated? cant seems to find the gbu-12 class numbers for Rafale, so correct me!
And again on the stated enginepower of gripen NG, heard a roomer(yes a roomer!?) from a wellknown company that they looking for between 26400lb and 29000lb as target output.. guess that up to the customer to balance the maintnence of engineparts.
Note that it is not SAAB thats pulling the strings, its General Electric (think they have a cloe how to get there already).
But then again its not for comparison, just a roomer.
Signgripen still holds the ground
There is a lot of guessing in your post and few facts especially when it comes to the Rafale.
From where does the “11975 kg” figure for the F414G comes from? Seems to be a guess of max increase proposed by the manufacturer, but it’s not fact. You have also to take into account that a 20% thrust increase for the M88 is no problem and has already been proven.
RCS is not soley related to size and while the Gripens frontal RCS might be small due its small size, the Gripen wasn’t designed with LO treatments in mind, unlike the Rafale. Radar is just a guess and the MIDS is already quite capable, I don’t see any advantages for the Gripen here.
So what is the MTBF for the Rafale etc.? I guess you don’t know, yet you claim the Gripen is clearly superior.
may not be a a fully reliable source, but the fact stands that GE will take out more power than standard F414. The same was done on the F404 vs RM12..
Saab likes to run it hotter and can gain more power..
http://jas39gripen.blogspot.com/
didnt know that any big power increase was planned for F3? source plz 😮
The radar is not a guess?! I work in the Biz.. so sorry cant give you any sources, and i cant stretch any more info on that one..
Midas isnt as capable thats a fact, it can only relay tracks, not rawdata for a wider evaluation, nor can i find any prof of relaying any midcourse guidence, which has a big tactical value.
for example:
A friend, whose out of dangerzone can guide your BVR:s as you fire those passivly and escape “fire and forget” style. BVR:s own activeradar dont need to be turned on before its to late for react with countermeasures.
And thats just one feature.
I wouldnt count to much of rafales lo treatment except passive launch(thou i cant understand how you can fire without range.) . And i wouldnt count out that SAAB skips the hole RAM tech thingie either. They have been tested alot of things in the past.
The mean value for MTBF in american fighters is 4.1h, that means two engine crafts is less, and for single enginecrafts a little more.
None american craft can even come near gripen, so i wonder how rafale will compete with its 2 specialdesign engines and with near all specialdesign components.
I have given you three simple scenarios, none of your arguments except partly powerupgrades stands uncorrected.
1. Deep penetion attack(one wave)
2. typical CAS(multiple wave)
3. 1 on 1
thou gripen still a winner in two out of three.
Sign1. Dimensions:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale C / Gripen NG
A. Length: 18.38 m / 15.27 m / 14.75 m
B. Span: 13.68 m / 10.80 m / 8.40 m (*1)
C. Height: 4.87 m / 5.34 m / 4.50 m
D. Wing area: 46.45 m2 / 45.70 m2 / 30.00 m*1: The wing span of F/A-18E is 9.32 m with folded outer wings.
2. Weights:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale C / Gripen NG
A. Empty weight: 14,288 kg / 9,500 kg / 7,100 kg
B. Internal fuel: 6,780 kg / 4,750 kg / 3,130 kg (*2)
C. Max. ext. fuel: 7,280 kg / 6,800 kg / 4,090 kg (*3)
D. Max. ext. load: 8,493 kg / 9,500 kg / 6,000 kg
E. Max. take-off weight: 29,937 kg / 24,500 kg / 16,000 kg*2: According to the formula: 1 liter fuel = 0.8 kg
*3: F/A-18E: 1,820 L external fuel tank * 5
Rafale C: 2,000 L external fuel tank * 3 + 1,250 L external fuel tank * 2
Gripen NG: 450 Gallon (1 Gallon = 3.785 L) external fuel tank * 33. Flight Performance:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale C / Gripen NG
A. Max. speed, high level: 1.8 Mach / 2.0 Mach+ / 2.0 Mach (Clean fighter)
B. Max. speed, high level: 1.6 Mach+ / 1.8 Mach+ / 1.8 Mach+ (A2A mission)
B. Max. speed, low level: < 1.0 Mach / 750 kts / 1.2 Mach (*4)
C. Max. operating altitude: > 15,240 m / 16,760 ~ 18,400 m / 16,500 m
D. Climb rate, sea level: > 254 m/sec / > 305 m/sec / unknown
G. Normal G-limit: -3.0 ~ +7.5G / -3.2 ~ +9.0 G / -3.0 ~ +9.0 G
H. Max. upper G-limit: +10.0 G / > +11.0 G / +12.0 G
I. Normal AoA limit: 60.0 degrees / 29.5 degrees / 50.0 degrees
J. Wing-load for air combat: 402.6 kg/m2 / 280.1 kg/m2 / 323.3 kg/m2 (*5)
K. T/W ratio for air combat, sea level: 1.067 / 1.205 / 1.029 with A/B (*6)
L. T/W ratio for air combat, sea level: 0.679 / 0.797 / 0.655 with max. mil. (*7)*4: It is said that F/A-18 E/F’s maximal speed is less than 1.0 Mach at the height below 10,000 fts.
*5 ~ *7:
a. The fighter’s weight for air combat = empty weight + 50% internal fuel + MRAAM*4 + SRAAM*2 + pilot and gun shells.
b. F/A-18E: 18,700 kg; Rafale C: 12,800 kg; Gripen NG: 9,700 kg.
c. Max. A/B thrust: 22,000 Ib for F414 and 17,000 Ib for M88-2.
d. Max. Mil. Thrust: 14,000 Ib for F414 and 11,250 Ib for M88-2.4. Ferry range and Striking radius:
A. Ferry range:
Clean F/A-18E with internal fuel only: 2,346 km.
Clean Rafale C with internal fuel only: > 2,100 km.
Gripen NG with maximal fuel loading: 4,074 km.B. Striking radius:
# F/A-18E:
a. 1,820L tanks*3, AGM-84 *2, ATFLIR pod*1, AIM-120*1, and AIM-9*2.
b. 805 NM or 1,135 NM with air-refueling*1.
# Rafale C:
a. 2,000L tanks*3, SCALP-EG *2 or 500 Ib LGBs*6, and MICA*4.
b. Around 800 NM (hi-lo-hi), or around 1000 NM including the effective range of SCALP-EG.
c. With the help of CFT if the customers wants: 920 to 960 NM, or around 1,100 to 1,175 NM including the effective range of SCALP-EG (*8).
# Gripen NG (*9):
a. 472 nm / 875 km in lo-lo-lo mission with GBU-16*3.
b. 607 nm / 1,125 km in lo-lo-lo mission with GBU-16*2 and external fuel tank*1.*8: Personal estimation according to the declaration from French that the CFTs for Rafale will be able to increase 15 to 20 % fighter’s combat radius.
*9: Personal estimation according to the anticipation from SAAB that the combat range / radius of Gripen NG shall be around 35% more than Gripen C.5. Others:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale C / Gripen NG
A. Pylons: 11 and 5 / 14 and 5 / 10 and 3, all and wet (*10)
B. Unit costs: 55.2 million USDs / 69.5 million USDs / 50.0 million USD (*11)
C. Maintenance: 15 / 12 / 10 Man-hours per flight hour.*10: Wet pylon means the pylon that can carry and use the tank.
*11:
a. The unit cost of F/A-18 E is 55.2 million USDs per fighter in 2008.
b. The average unit price of Rafale F3 during 2008 to 2012 is 69.5 million USDs.
c. The price that SAAB sold Gripen to Thailand in 2007 is around 50.0 million USDs per fighter, including the costs for training and logistics.
Gripen C/D can do approx 2,3 mach clean, so with F414G that would be even faster. And the cost to thailand isnt a good benchmark due to small order and C/D version not NG..
SignGripen NG/BR still wins…
[QUOTE=arthuro;1308506]Sign,
The last confrontation between the rafale F2 and the gripen in france (Reims) showed that the rafale weapon system was more advanced in several areas notably data fusion and thus situation awareness.
As an aircraft, sweedish pilots acknowledged in the monthly Air fan that the gripen lacked some power during high altitude dogfights against the rafale. French pilots praised gripen quick turn around possibilities but compared gripen weapon system to the mirage 2000-5mk2 and told that there was a generation gap with the rafale.
You are talking about upgrades but what about those of rafale’s ? The post F3 standard is funded AND ordered by the French air force unlike the gripen NG. Post rafale F3 standard will encompass AESA RBE2 (which is already flying on rafale B301 by the way) a next gen Frontal Sector Optronics, improved SPECTRA, improved engines, and a new missile warning receiver.
And It seems you don’t that Gripen NG AESA antenna is from Thales the same French manufacturer which is responsible for rafale’s radar. So the rafale’s AESA radar will “kill everything as well!”
Ordinance wise, the rafale is in another league! This is THE big forte of the rafale airframe which can carry an exceptional payload. 3*2000 liters drop tanks + 2 *SCALP (1,2t each) plus 4 to 6 AtA missile and 2*1300 liters CFT if needed by the customer. Gripen NG comes nowhere near this performance. A rafale can carry as much as a SH but with 5 t less of airframe !
As a consequence the rafale will offer much more punch than a gripen.
QUOTE]
The gripen Demo is a testbed and isn´t the same as Gripen NG, Thales may not be the supplyer in the end…
Gripen NG will choose the best T/R modules on the market, and a backend och integration from Saab Microwavesystems.
What i heard about the Thales T/R modules, is that they lack in power.. so that makes Thales a unlikely supplyer, and gripen the winner radarwise.
And again “rafale would not kill as well”
If you ask a french pilot about a dogfight offcouse he will tell you that…he´s french?!
So a gripen C/D lack in power to a Rafale F2, and only in, hi alt dogfights? 🙂
So it doesnt lack in speed and in lo level dogfights..maybe the tabels have turned..not bad for a single engine craft..:D
Gripen NG has a big engine upgrade.. so all this is really irrelevant.
But if you like numbers you got it:
Thrust to weight ratio (Thrust in kg/Full internal fuel in liter+ empty weight in kg + 4*BVR, 2*WVR ~1000 kg)
Rafale (7652*2/4600 + 9500 + ~1000): 1.01
Gripen NG (11975/3150 + 7100 + ~1000): 1.06
And to add even more to the refinement, F414G be a better engine in wider pressure ranges(alt) than RM12 and F404.
the old EWS 39 has also been proven in exercises to be a excellent system, especially the jammer..(see redflag alaska)
the gripens upgrades are funded also, by norway, sweden, SAAB, and a bunch of supplyers.
Situation awareness has been a gripen trademark since A/B version, most part of the sensorfusion and the TIDLS datalink. It takes more than a passive reciever to brake that…even A/B gripens could share passive receiver plots(rawdata) and triangulate the source. A Rafale F3 cant do that.
Back to my latest post..
In my evaluation is based again on a EWS/Radar/datalink/meteor/speed/radarcrosssection fight between those two. This is how a fight goes down today..and is the simplest of way of compare two fighters..
Gripen wins definitly in radar, datalink, and crosssection
Gripen wins probably in EWS
Gripen wins probably in speed(T/W 1,06 vs 1.01 and 1.1+ supercruise*)
And offcourse, this is a “light comparison” 1 vs 1.
For multirole the comparison it gets more complex
And to add even more to the complexity a airforce and a divsity of groundtargets, airfields, tactics, awacs, sams, training, logistics.
When talking about AWACS, Brazil operates the Saab Microwave Systems Erieye radar, which nietly uses TIDLS datalink.
And offcourse Rafale is a great fighter with a big trunk, and beats gripen in a heavyduty, one wave, deep penetrating attack mission.
But not as the fight is closer to a small and rough airfield which can be used for reloading, and the conflict is longer than one wave.
Then Gripen can deliver much more punch per hour.
Dont know much of the rafales “downtime”*2, but it would be a lot due to 2 engines, though the gripen have the best records in the world. So after the first wave, gripen is halfway back to the theater, when rafale i still refueling, or fixing some technical errors.
*The RM12 can supercruise at 1.1 mach, the F414G would be a better supercruiser with more than +20% dry powergain.
*2 gripen can do landing, rearming, refueling, and takeoff in less then 10 min. and has a MTBF of 7.6 hours.
Al
SignWhat makes you think the Gripen NG is as good as a Rafale? It hasn’t even flown, so I don’t see how you could be so sure of Saab’s figures. Besides, how do you know that the Gripen radar and ECM suites can match the RBE2 or SPECTRA? And does the Gripen NG have an IRST/TV sensor?
Even if it could really match the Rafale, you would still be subject to the good will of the US to operate, since many of the Gripen’s components come from the US.
Nic
Rafale has never been extravagant in the electronic department(my opinion),
allthou it has made up for some in F3, it is on par generally with C/D version of the gripen, exept:
Gripens EWS suit is the best europeen to date!
Gripens the datalink is the best in the world(TIDLS)! and i will be even better(satcom). Maybe 2 F-22 has a better link between each other, but not much said.
Rafales use of spectra in F3(passive guidence is real nice and is on top of C/D gripens today)
RBE2 is maybe better than PS05-ms19(todays C/D version) or maybe not, the real data is classified.
Allthou the Gripen NG AESA will be out of this world, and WILL kill anything to date, i will tell you that..(everything else is not for disussion forums.. 🙂 )
On Gripen NG/future C/D will add 360 degree MWS/LWS to the EWS-39 for missile launch and even better threat detection(both passive).
EWS-39 would give threat detection at a likely greater range and not as subject to bursts of light or other heat interruptions.
So with that clear, that leaves the 360 synthetic IR image of the DAS, and well with IRST/LDP/HMD the visual IR coverage should generally speaking be good in forward/up/down/side aspects but blind to the rear.
Normaly when people compare fighters, they dont care about the versions and upgrades, which is a real big problem.
A/B gripens which the most common to find specs about is kind of old these days. Upgrades are made monthly, so those specs isnt fair.
In this case, Gripen NG will be first to kill over Rafale F3, of the basis of sensors, EW, and datalinks.
Ordinance wise, they are on par, thou Rafale has 14 hardpoints vs 12.
In a dogfight or a fatigue effort it maybe different story, but who are we kidding..no one can tell you that, without the big clash, or a special debated scenario and support(tankers, tactics, AWACS ,airfields, numbers etc.).
Thou LM seems to know it all! 🙂
Sign In
