toanSource please?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GRIPEN042508.xml
Swedish Fighter Prototype Addresses Propulsion and Evaluates AESA
Apr 25, 2008
Bill Sweetman and Douglas Barrie
Oslo’s choice is a straight fight between the Gripen NG and the F-35. The Eurofighter nations effectively shelved the bid with Typhoon, driven, at least partially, by how the competition was being conducted.
Part of the Norwegian evaluation scenario in support of its fighter choice included contender aircraft being tasked with destroying targets within a surface-to-air missile (SAM) system environment based on highly capable double-digit SAMs. The simulation scenario, however, called for the aircraft to be operated inside the engagement ranges of all SAMs with the weapons of choice restricted to the GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition and GBU-10/12 Paveway II weapons.
Sorry, some part of my previous post is not correct ~ Not SDB, but LGBs.
Political reasons may be the main factors for deciding the choice of NG fighter, but Norway still need a good techonological excuse to explain why it makes such a decision, and I think the simulation scenario mentioned above shall be an excellent excuse to explain the decision of choosing F-35 over Gripen NG…….
toanNorwegian AF said that it will evaluate both F-35 and Gripen NG under very strict and cruel scenarios. One of them is to evaluate F-35 and Gripen NG’s capability to penetrate the long range SAM systems of S-300/S-400 class, with just using short range AG guided weapons such as JDAM and/or SDB (I think it should be one of the reasons why the manufacturer of Eurofighter keeps refusing to join the competition once again).
Therefore, personally, I still believe that F-35 shall have much more possibility for winning Norwegian competition, and I will be very suprised if Gripen NG becomes the final winner.
toanAbout the grippen, any sign of these famous conformal fuel tanks?
SAAB has abandoned the idea of integrating a CFT on the Gripen. Instead, it increases the internal fuel capacity of Gripen NG.
toanThat maybe true in the case of the UAE. Yet, the US interest in the UAE are totally the opposite of that in India. As a matter of fact both India and the US see a Strategic Interest in closer cooperation. Really, its even much larger than that. India in general see a need and benefit for closer ties to the West. Which, besides the US and Europe also includes countries in Asia like South Korea, Japan, and Australia to name a few……….Regardless, it’s very likely that the US will grant India far greater access than many even believe today. Its going to happen so you mite as well accept it…….
Anticipation is one thing, and only time will tell if it can be really happened. There is still something that US government and congress have to take into consideration before they agree to sell long range cruise missile to IAF, such as the possible response from Pakistan or Mainland China. And I’m not so sure whether this kind of deal can still fit the USA’s biggest interest after these factors have being considered.
toanKirov and Slava have entered service in USSR and Russian for almost 30 years, and it seems that they will serve for another 10 years without the threat from F-35…..
Western country airforces, including USAF and USN, have used the 3rd and 4th Gen fighters to encounter these kinds of threat for almost 30 years, just when Kirov and Slava become so formidble that western Gen 4 fighters can do nothing but keep getting shot down while they are still 75 miles out??
toanIt is true that USA has the more complete and relatively cheap arsenal comparing with France. However, it is also true that USA has much more strict restrictions to sell certain kinds of long range striking weapons to other countries comparing with France.
Why UAE airforce still bought and upgraded 62 Mirage 2000-9 while USA had permitted to sell the F-16E Block60, which has the longer striking range, better radar, better engine, and cheaper price comparing with Mirage 2000-9, to UAE airforce?? One of the main reason is that France agreed to sell long range air-launched cruise missile, while USA government didn’t.
Therefore, it is true that F/A-18E/F has very promising arsenal and electronics, however, whether IAF can get the satisfying equipments and service or not is still not so sure………Because of the disagree from USA, India couldn’t get Arrow-2 ATBM system from Israel (USA government’s reason: “Arrow-2 has the potential to be modified to a ballistic missile with the range longer than 300 km…..” ). And will this kind of thing happen again in MMRCA project??? At least some Indian airforce officers believe so.
toanThere is a huge difference in the ability of an airplane with a 1 sqm RCS to get close to the target and the ability of an airplane with a 0.001 sqm RCS to get close to the target in an IADS environment.
S300 is an awesome system that has the ability to kill the 1 sqm airplane when it is 75 miles away. Meanwhile, the 0.001 sqm airplane remains undetected and paints an LPI SAR picture of the target while 60 miles out, then verifies target geolocation using EOTS at 25 miles (still undetected). The S300 only detects the 0.001 sqm airplane as it turns away (larger RCS when viewed from the side) after releasing JDAMs some 20 miles away, too late for the S300 to execute a successful intercept of the 0.001 sqm airplane.
The best the 1 sqm airplane can do is stand off and lob $1M Storm Shadows/Scalps at the target. But those missiles will not hit their target unless they have up to date targeting data. A stupid waste of $1M missiles unless the target is geolocated by the 0.001 sqm airplane and coordinates datalinked back to the 1 sqm airplane. So, how useful is the 1 sqm airplane if it needs $1M missiles and someone stealthy to find targets for it?
In addition, S-300 is not the best long range SAM system that Russian has (and for sale) today. The most terrible threats that western fighters have to face today are S-400/S-500, whose effective range to engage the certain target is two to three times (or even more) of the original S-300, and I think the effective range (250 – 400 km) of STORM SHADOW/SCALP-EG is not long enough for non-stealthy fighters (Tornado, Mirage, Rafale……) to attack the targets protected by these kinds of SAM system at a safe distance.
That is why RAF now is trying to acquire a long range and extremely stealthy UCAV at the age of around 2020…….
toanOk..lets move on 😉
Any possibility for the grippen with the EJ200?
Only if USA rejects to sell F414 to Gripen NG………
toanPlease, the F-35 can go downtown and survive………….Personally, I wouldn’t even try that against some of Russias New SAM Systems! Especially, in a 4th Generation Fighter! At least not with alot of support.
Unfortunately, even USAF and USN have to try to against Russian New SAM Systems in a 4th Generation fighters for another 10-15 years at least ~ It seems that both F-35 and 2018 bomber won’t have enough number to take over most A-G missions before 2020s…….
toanThe cost for exporting Typhoon fighters
The cost for exporting Typhoon fighters:
1. Astria: around 1.63 billion Euros (roughly equal to 2.60 billion USD) for 15 Eurofighter Tranche I Block 5A.
–> Around 173 million USD per fighter (including the costs of training and supporting).
2. Saudi Arabia: around 4.43 billion Pounds (roughly equal to 8.90 billion USD) for 72 Eurofighter Tranche II Block 8.
–> Around 124 million USD per fighter (Eurofighter only or with the costs of some other weapon systems??).
toanhttp://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/3_Gripen_Capability_89303a.pdf
Fighter: JAS-39C／JAS-39NG
Weight: 6,800 kg／ 7,100 kg
MTOW: 14,000kg／16,000kg
Int. fuel: 2,268 kg／3,130 kg (38% increase)
Ext. load: 5,000 kg／6,000 kg
Thrust: 18,000Ib／22,000 to 26,000Ib
Number of pylon: eight／ten
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GRIPEN042508.xml
Gripen NG:
* Maximal fuel loading: 1,400 kg more than the JAS-39C today.
* Combat range/radius: around 35% longer than the JAS-39C today.
* Maximal unrefueled ferry range: 2,200 NM (1,640 NM for the JAS-39C).
* The capability of 1.1 Mach cruising (with standard A-A configuration and in the common day) without A/B.
toanNow i may be putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5 but…
source blackpool gazette
Now does the Oman link fit in here?
cheers
It should be depended on whether if Oman airforce just wants a new fighter with the air to ground capability of using LGBs and dumb bombs only…….
toanAccording the datas I’ve collect before (some of them can be wathed here: http://www.geae.com/engines/military/comparison_turbofan.html)
Engine Type／Weight／Max. Thrust／Max. SFC／TWR／Overall Pressure Ratio
F100-PW-100／3,149 Ib／22,600 Ib／2.10／7.18:1／24.5:1
F100-PW-200／3,190 Ib／22,600 Ib／2.10／7.08:1／24.5:1
F100-PW-220／3,265 Ib／23,770 Ib／2.10／7.28:1／25.0:1
F100-PW-220E／3,245 Ib／23,770 Ib／2.10／7.28:1／25.0:1
F100-PW-229／3,795 Ib／29,100 Ib／1.94／7.67:1／32.4:1
F100-PW-232／4,065 Ib／32,500 Ib／1.91／8.00:1／35.0:1
F110-GE-100／3,920 Ib／28,000 Ib／2.06／7.14:1／30.4:1
F110-GE-129／3,950 Ib／29,000 Ib／1.90／7.34:1／30.7:1
F110-GE-132／4,050 Ib／32,500 Ib／2.09／8.02:1／33.3:1
F110-GE-400／4,400 Ib／27,000 Ib／2.00／6.14:1／29.9:1
F404-GE-400／2,195 Ib／16,000 Ib／1.85／7.29:1／26.0:1
F404-GE-402／2,282 Ib／17,700 Ib／1.74／7.76:1／26.0:1
F404-GE-102／2,282 Ib／17,700 Ib／1.74／7.76:1／26.0:1
F404-RM-12／2,325 Ib／18,100 Ib／1.78／7.78:1／27.0:1
F404-GE-F2J3／2,335 Ib／18,300 Ib／1.80／7.84:1／27.0:1
F404-GE-IN20／2,355 Ib／18,800 Ib／1.80／7.98:1／28.0:1
F414-GE-400／2,445 Ib／22,000 Ib／????／9.00:1／30.0:1
toanHave you heard anything at all that indicates the uprated F414 is anything other than vaporware at this point?
I’m not sure if I misunderstand your meaning…….
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20060717b.html
F414: With more than 500,000 flight-hours, the F414 engine continues to exceed U.S. Navy reliability goals. The F414-powered F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has expanded its presence in the U.S. Navy fleet, with 19 active squadrons available for carrier deployment. To date, more than 600 F414 engines have been delivered in support of the Navy’s plan to purchase engines and spares for 552 twin-engine F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.
GE has continued testing growth versions of the F414, including an Enhanced Durability Engine (EDE) that includes an advanced core that can provide either a 15% increase in thrust or extended component life at current thrust levels. This configuration uses a six-stage, 3D aero high-pressure compressor and an advanced high-pressure turbine. The new compressor increases airflow and efficiency while the advanced turbine has higher temperature capability and improved efficiency.
GE has also completed extensive rig testing of the new high-pressure compressor and a new two- stage advanced fan. This year, GE will test this new fan with the EDE core to provide up to 20% more thrust than the current F414.
toanEven “if” the Gripen NG was a little more agile. Most aircombat happens at BVR….Which, considering the F-16 will always carry a larger Radar and likely a more capable AESA one at that. I don’t see the advantage???
As for the F414 the current plan is for a slightly modifed GE F-414-400 straight from the Super Hornet. While, it does have growth protential GE is not funding it nor is SAAB. We can all dream………..Hey, maybe LM will drop in a P& W F-135 in the F-16! (I doubt it would fit but hell we are dreaming)
Pesonally, I think the Gripen NG will run out of steam but like the F-20 did vs the F-16………….As I see no advantges over current types like the F-16C Blk 50’s & 60’s and its totally outclassed my the forthcoming F-35A.
1. The mechanical radar (PS-05A) that Gripen carries today is not smaller than the radars F-16A/B/C/D carry, and its detective / tracking range is near the class of APG-65/APG-73, or roughly equal to APG-68V9, while the fronatal RCS of Gripen is smaller than F-16A/B/C/D.
2. I agree that F-16E/F might carry a bigger AESA radar with a longer detective/tracking range than Gripen NG will be able to carry, but it is still hard to say which one will be able to have the longer detective / tracking range over the other one when you consider the RCS difference between them.
3. As for the problems of payload and combat radius/range, it seems that Gripen NG’s payload is roughly equal to the F-16 series before F-16C/D Block50/52, and its combat radius / ferry range shall be superior to any F-16 series that lacks CFTs and large external fuel tank. Only the late Falcon (F-16 Block52 plus, F-16E/F, F-16I) with CFTs and 2270L external fuel tanks may have the combat radius / ferry range that is similar or a little superior than Gripen NG, and one thing you should take into consideration: these late Falcons (empty weight: 8878 kg ~ 9980 kg) are 25% to 40% more heavier than Gripen NG~a range of difference which is roughly equal to the size/weight difference between F-16C/E and F/A-18C/D to F-15C/E.
4. It is said that Sweden has also joined the plan of F414’s future ugrading, which shall increase the possibility that Gripen NG may be able to use the upgrading F414 in the future.
5. The advantage and difference in computer, software, electronics, cockpit, and EW system shall be the most important, but they are also impossible to be compared properly and correctly in this website.
Sign In
