Tu22m^ and that will make Gripen invisible to Su-35 radar? :rolleyes:
No. But by tracking the enemies emissions one can avoid detection fairly well. Radio emissions, radar emissions etc are tracked and geo located while ground based radars and AWACS easily track the Flankers.
This means the Gripens, when close to the mainland, in most cases will be the ones choosing when and where to attack. Thanks to Meteor and excellent datalinks Gripens will get the first shoot capability.
After that comes jam resistance. If both jets manage to jam the hell out of eachothers missiles then it will go to IR-missiles and gun kills. Gripen C is a very hard opponent since it can make among the tightest turns I’ve heard of.
So by choosing when and where to get the first shoot the Gripens will have an advantage over the Flankers.
By using better missiles Gripen C will have an advantage (BVR + WVR).
By being extremely agile even the end game (dogfight) looks good.
But remember that the Gripen system is built to utilise quick turnarounds as a force multiplier. This means they can go up, spam missiles, re-arm and go up again with very little time loss. It is a defensive strategy but hey, that’s what it was built for.
So situational awereness + missiles are better for Gripen, agility is harder to pinpoint but at least the wing loading is better on the Gripen and the thrust/weight is close depending on fuel etc.
Taking cues from radar and fusing the information with HADF antennas isn’t something unique and limited to Gripen NG, or is it 🙂 ?
It has been around since the 80s in SAAB fighter jets (Jaktlänk on Viggen).
Tu22mThe price will continue to go down as numbers build up. Nonetheless, how many Gripens equal one F-35.;)
Comparing TCO you’ll get ~3,5 Gripen E per F35.
Or you get 3 Gripen E + 2 stealth drones in GA Avenger class per F35. In total 156 Gripen E + 104 stealth drones or 52 F35. Another option would be 120 Gripen E, 120 stealth drones + dense ass hell SHORAD and SAM-sites around all airfields + extra standoff missiles.
Yes, the comparison is unfair and does not account for potential BVR-capabilities.
(Based on…
RSAF TCO 90bn SEK/60 jets = 100 NOK/60 jets = 87 NOK/52 jetsvs 320 bn/52 jets for RNAF TCO.
Difference: 320/87 = ~3,7 )
Tu22mSo i make it, that SAAB is funding it as a tech demonstrator and they are hoping for Government and/or Foreign partner funding. Am i correct? The problem with getting JSF & Potential JSF customers would be the TIMELINE. A brand new program will be much riskier to those committed to the JSF, and for future potential JSF customers, they would rather invest money in a F-35 that is fully developed compared to a much riskier proposition. Had they launched earlier and been more aggressive on the time lines maybe then they could have had more success.
The programme to develop the “Flight system 2020” is already funded.
Beställare [Customer]: Försvarsmakten [The Armed Forces].
Samarbete: Saab, Volvo, FOI, KTH, Chalmers, LiTH, LundTH, ACAB, Ångström m.fl.
Old thread: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=100194
Tu22mAre they financially committed to it? If so what are the timelines? I think Boeing may want to join hands here, given that they would likely want to stay relevant in the FIGHTER market once the F-15 and F18SH lines come to an end.
The question is rather if the Swedish Government is. With everyone jumping on the F35 bandwagon there will be few partner nations willing to join.
By 2020 it should be flying though, in full scale with avionics from the latest Gripens. Hopefully it will get under 10 tonnes in weight and get the thrust buffed. That should make it fairly cheap (Rafale-class or slightly higher) ad thus likely to be acquired by SwAF and maybe other Gripen nations like Thailand, Switzerland etc and maybe Malaysia/Brazil.
Tu22mWell I have to say I would love to see Dassault -SAAB-BAE get together to build a 5.5/6 gen fighter for Europe but I don’t see it happening
SAAB will do it by themselves.
Check out FS 2020, its not a Gripen replacement but rather a complement. It will probably be the first western 5th gen air superiority fighter made for “exportability”.
Nice slides about it. http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-warfare/118265-swedish-stealth-fighter-concept-fs-2020-a.html
But I have some concerns about the weight.. It looks very premature when it comes to the metrics as it will be heavy and not be able to carry anything. Or is design weight incl internal fuel?
Tu22mAnd despite all that the 23 was not selected, I wonder why ?
It should give you an idea of what really counts 🙂
Cheers
Isnt it obvious?
Both where good enough, one was expected to be less risc and had a better economical solution (that turned out to be BS).
In the next purchase I hope the US DoD remembers that LM ≠Low risc or low cost.
Tu22mAircraft differ because most the main gear carries most of the weight. As I mentioned, no front brakes except on Gripen. I imagine drag created by canards is more important for braking than down force. Look at the size of those front tyres, they’re not going to cope well with more than some % of breaking power.
Don’t forget that they use ABS on all landing wheels 😉
Another solution is thrust reversers (would have been pretty cool and cheap on the F35… or cheaper than STOVL)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJo7aqOfRww
(It redirects the jets thrust forward, it is a bit risky but with decent landing gear it works anyway)
Tu22mYou can’t compare the two like that. One has way more representative subsystems than the other. One was as empty shell as possible to simply satisfy the competition requirements while the other went beyond and was rewarded through brownie points. Regarding X35 vs. X32, Boeing had a much more advanced supersonic wing design but couldn’t satisfy the vertical lift requirements. The latter was what killed it from the perspectives at that time frame. How do you knowingly select a jet that has no possibilities based on the requirements than one that has potential (the lift-fan concept was exciting at the time and still possess potential for spin-offs after the F35Bs get developed).
Which was an empty shell? Btw, isnt that the most cost effective solution since that opens up the playing field for COTS?
IIRC the X32 did lift and take off vertically using a similar system to the Harrier, aka it was low risc. But LM had a fully functioning VTOL solution while boeing only had a 80% finished solution (no transition).
Tu22mNot sure about production cost, but i agree with performance, the YF23 is claimed to have better transonic and supersonic performance with the raptor having better Low speed/High AOA performance. But the difference was not HUGE, and as it turned out both jets accomplished test parameters and met most targets..
Usually production costs are relative to weight of the final product. YF23 weighed 13’100 kg, almost 2’000 kg lighter than the YF22 and fairly close to X35.
If the production isnt overly complex (the risc in this case) then weight is the key denominator with all else equal.
Regarding performance there might not have been a huge margin but the metrics say what they say. YF23 was slimmer, lighter and had more lift/weight.
Funny how they went the other way when they picked X35. Boeing had the lowest risc that time, and thrust vectoring.
Tu22mPerhaps surprisingly, I think they made the right call between YF-22/23 in favour of lower-risk design. And I think it looks better too. 😮
If we compare metrics… the YF 23 vs 22:
Better range (~10-15%)
Higher speeds (~300km/h)
Better wing loading (265kg/m² vs 363/m²)
Higher thrust/weight (1,34 vs 1,11 loaded, 2,38 vs 2,08 empty)
Lower weight (~2’000kg)
This would mean that the YF23 should have better sustained turn performance, better kinematics and lower production costs.
The YF22 probably could offer better turn performance at very high alpha and low speed and being a lower risc project.
I also think Lockheed had a better economical package. But in a traditional sense there is no doubt about what airframe was the highest performing.
According to “insiders”, the YF23 was a higher risk (as you have mentioned), had better Super cruise performance but was less Maneuverable especially at low speed high AOA. No way to substantiate these claims by hard evidence but that was what i was constantly hearing from industry sources. However with all due respect to NG and their awesome product the final design would have been quite a bit better (as with the evolution from YF22 to F/A-22 ) …
I think that is correct. Both jets met the requirements, one did it by a larger margin and the other was less risc.
Tu22mI have a few days off and I can’t resist to address the absurdity to label combat aircraft of the same age to different generations. To just take a single or a few attributes without understanding their use to decide generations is a bit silly.
1. The fighter cliff.
2. Fly high.
3 The electronic age.
I’m in awe. This is yet another post that will go into my special place (not a bodily orifice).
Tu22mHas the TIDLS been offered for integration on other fighters?
Unfortunately no. But it will be integrated in the upcoming SAAB UCAVs (has been tested in Sharc and Filur).
The current version is fully compatible with Link 16 btw and there is a ship/land based system for integration with it that is used by SwAF and Thai AF as well as on ERIEYE. So there should be room at least for systme integraton.
It would have been sweet to see Thai F16s use TIDLS and maybe install the Gripen cockpit after MLU.
Tu22mI thought Gripen would get sensor fusion with the E version only?
It was a cheap way to improve survivability and boost efficiency to incorporate advanced datalinks. So it was included from the beginning. TIDLS was also designed according to SwAF tactics as a “fight” or “hunt”-link (Jaktlänk) tht was inherited from Viggen. Ill post some text and a translation in the end of this.
Anyway, great list above, however I think you missed the “reduced IR signature”?
Fixed it.
Also, the E version will have further reduction in RCS compared to C
Yes. The A version had a center fuselage mostly made in aluminum with wings etc made from CFRP, the C version has even more CFRP and about 15 years of additional research in RCS-reduction. The E versions biggest reflector head on will be the missiles.
And when did the beamed datalinks enter? I thought that was also with the E?
I’m not sure if they hav directional datalinks now, but beamed will enter service with either the E version or in a upgrade. I think Ola Rignell said @AeroIndia that new software versions are shipped to the customers every 2 or 6 months. So It is planned for E but might show up before.
Eurofighter Norway claimed the Typhoon IR signature “is in the same class as the F-35″…
Well… If you place birds in one class, fighter jets in one and stars in a third then sure. Gripen and F35 will be in the same class. But if one jet (Gripen) has lower drag, has less than half the loaded weight (and burns <50% of the fuel) and has been designed to have a low IR signature then it will be a big difference.
Jaktlänk (Hunt link/Fight link) early 1980s (the predecessor to TIDLS):
Limitations: Only two active jets (active data, target and sensor sharing), the rest where passive (listening), in the 90s 4 active jets where supported.
Information shared (automatically): Radar, target designation, position of own ac and all other detected tagets, combat status, movement vectors. All data from C&C.
What the active jets saw on their radar was displayed on the tactical indicator in the passive jets who could perform “silent” attacks by engaging these targets. The data from the active jets got fused to one single presentation.
So I think we can say that data fusion of sorts with few jets has been around since the 80s in the SAAB family of fighters.
Forgot that its bad form to leave out sources: http://www.aef.se/Avionik/Notiser/Fr29%20Notis%202.htm#_Toc223782330
Tu22mI’ve seen JAS-39A-D lumped into the Generation 4.5 crowd along with Eurofighter/Rafale/upgraded Flankers?
So a couple of questions?
1. Is JAS-39A-D 4.5 generation or is it really 4th generation?
The C-version might be classed as 4,5 depending on criteria. The E without a doubt.
I would say this makes it qualify as fourth gen fighter
1 Fly by wire
2 Using onboard computers for flight controls and system integration
3 Glass cockpit
4 Digital datalink that allows Air-Ground Control, Air-Air two way communicaion
5 BVR capabilities
Everything other than that makes it gen 4+. This is what Gripen has had apart from the above (marked with A, C or E).
A Exceptional maneuverability (pretty extreme performancce with light loads)
A Full sensor fusion since day one, including warning sensors, radar etc and advanced datamodes (like silent attack)
A Reduced RCS and IR signatures
A Shared fire controls/weapons guidance (One jet can fire the missile and hand over controls to the others)
A Omnirole (can change from survailance to attack to AA during flight as long as the correct weapons are carried)
A Exceptional EWS with updates being fielded every year (or at least every other year)
C Air refueling and additional RCS reduction
C IRST integration with IRIS-T (interim solution)
E AESA radar with 200 degree scan sector
E IRST
E Supercruise
So what capabilities draw the line from 4th to 5th gen? IRST isnt part of it since the F22 doesnt have it.
2. Other than being cheap to operate, what other advantages does a JAS-39 have over upgraded F-16 or F/A-18A-D?
Its a superior fighter (with the Cobra HMDS) installed i the C-version. C version has roughly similar range. Better datalinks, more advanced EWS and more jam resistant radar (at least up to 2008). So its more capable WVR and BVR even though the FA18 is tricky at low speeds. When the Gripen didnt have HMDS the FA18 was a very hard opponent WVR.
The E version offers a fully customisable glass cockpit.
3. In terms of performance, is JAS-39 even comparable to much heavier Rafale and Eurofighter?
Depends on performance.
The E version is very close to the two, in some areas its behind, in others its ahead. The C-version is behind in most areas compared to the two.
Tu22mThe F-35 follows that methodology.
They chose “A”
I was thinking more about all nations who have comitted little or no funds so far.
It just feels like F22 or M2 Bradley all over again.
Sign In
