The 4075 km max ferry range figure however is rather “dubious” — the real figure is higher than that… 😎

Really? Why in the world would they undersell range to two of the LARGEST countries in the world, when going up against larger competitors? Do you think they’re dumb? 😀

You shouldn’t have to tear down the entire aircraft to change parts. The engine switch is one good example.

Engine switch times
Gripen: <1 hr
Rafale: <1 hr for 1 engine, <1h45 for both engines

Now tell me again, are you so sure that SAAB are the only ones who know how to design an aircraft for low maintenance? 😉

Wait a minute. You increase thrust by a factor of 50%
(15000 lbs –>22500 lbs), but increase fuel consumption by a factor of 16%
2.5 kg/km–>2.9 kg/km) :confused:

Bigger does not inherently give longer range, see p-51 vs twice-the-weight P-47, and about comparability in aerodynamics Gripen NG manages to SC >M1.2 with paltry 15000 lbs of thrust, Rafale has a higher T/W so unless it can SC at even higher speed ……

Thrust is irrelevant for range. What’s relevant is Cl/Cd (lift to drag) and fuel fraction. There’s no way to know for sure, but IMHO Rafale and Typhoon should have a better Cl/Cd due to lower wing loading and cleaner aerodynamics (more wing sweep, air inlets, recessed AAMs):

Several data points suggest that Rafale/Typhoon have a better lift to drag ratio:
– Rafale’s low speed performance is slightly superior to the Gripen A/C (approach speed 120 knots vs. 125 knots, minimum speed 80knots), and Gripen NG will do worse than the Gripen A/C.
– Both Rafale & Typhoon have superior supercruise performance (despite what fans say, there is no confirmation that Gripen NG can do Mach 1.2 with a drop tank)

As for Rafale’s fuel fraction, it is about 1% higher than Gripen, more with CFTs. Typhoon’s fuel fraction would also be higher with CFTs.

You can’t beat the laws of physics: while Gripen NG does well in range terms, its aerodynamics and fuel fraction are slightly behind Rafale/Typhoon and cannot compensate for its smaller payload capability. This is not a criticism of SAAB, just a reflection of the fact that smaller aircraft tend to be more aerodynamically constrained since they have to fit the same electronics and pilot in a smaller package.

Btw i said one of the best, or at least that’s what i meant with “just about”, the several orders of magnitude cheaper to operate Gripen for the same work is a plus that puts it ahead in my book.

IMHO, Gripen NG isn’t going to compete with Rafale in A2A, not with the draggy configurations proposed by SAAB (see pictures in my previous post) and without the billions invested in Spectra/OSF and signature reduction.

That said, for A2A against other South American airforces and A2G, IF it really is 2x cheaper than Rafale, then yes it’s a better choice for Brazil. However, that’s a big IF, since I don’t see why Gripen’s electronics or airframe should be any cheaper to maintain. The only difference is the extra engine for Rafale, but then again Rafale has fewer moving parts (fixed refueling probe, no airbrakes) and some unique maintenance friendly arguments such as the canopy designed to facilitate ejection seat removal.

A delta wing has stronger structural integrity then a conventional a/c,
at the same time they have by far less wing loading.
I’d estimate a fully laden A2G Gripen NG has around the same wing loading as a F-18E with internal fuel + couple of wingtip sidewinders only.

One point is obviously to have just about the best range outer air interceptor that is out there, save F.3.
The main limiter for deltas has been few hard points, but the Gripen NG boost 10 IIRC, vs F-18E 11, but perhaps that makes up and tip the scale towards F-18E ?

Ahem, dream on. :p

Gripen NG: 16t MTOW, 25.5m2 wing area –> 625 kg/m2
F/A-18E: 20.8t with 2 AIM-9s,45.5m2 wing area –> 450kg/m2 😉

Anyway, are you honestly implying that the Gripen NG is the best long-ranged interceptor out there? It is certainly extremely impressive for its size, and IMHO a better airframe than the F/A-18E, but both the Rafale and the Typhoon will get inherently better range due to their larger size and comparatively more efficient aerodynamic configurations:

– Recessed AAMs
– Better lift/drag ratio due to larger wings
– Proportionately less impact of stores on drag

Public data confirms this. Not just comparing supercruise performance, but also comparing ranges in similar configurations:

Gripen NG
1,300km radius + 30min CAP with 6 AAMs and 2x 1,700L drop tanks
–> About 3,000km effective range
–> About 2.5kg fuel consumption per km

Rafale
1,780km interception radius with 8 AAMs and 3x 2,000L drop tanks
–> About 2.9kg fuel consumption per km assuming 1,000L used in combat (usually 5 minutes)
–> Only 20% more than Gripen NG with much more payload/range!

IMHO, the Gripen NG’s wing is too small for its size and in addition the Gripen NG’s proposed stores configurations seem very draggy, especially the multiple ejector racks/launch rails and very closely spaced pylons.

Also, the Gripen’s CAP numbers are misleading because endurance numbers tend to look better than range numbers for high-drag configurations, so in reality even if Gripen NG can come close to Typhoon and Rafale in endurance, it won’t get the same range (lower cruise speed due to more drag).

If customers have any need for a long-range interceptor, then the clear winners should be the Rafale or Typhoon with CFTs to reduce drag even further compared to drop tanks.

Naval aircraft can generally use ski-jumps without any modifications. In fact, in the early 1980s the USN ran real life ski-jump tests with the F/A-18 and F-14. The USAF also ran computer simulations with the F-15 and F-16, but these aircraft would have required strengthened undercarriage.
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA237265

For the F/A-18, the test results were as follows:

Launch conditions: No wind on deck (I think), no altitude loss, 9 degree ski jump
Launch weight: 32,800lbs
T/W ratio: ~1.0
Stall Speed: ~112kts
Approach speed: ~139kts (from here: http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~durham/2002-71.pdf)

Ground roll: 385ft

By comparison, the F-35B’s ground roll target is 450ft. So in a real world situation (450ft ground roll, 25kts wind over deck, some altitude loss allowed), an F/A-18 could launch at a significantly higher weight than 32,800lbs.

The same thing applies to Rafale, except that Rafale has more thrust (34,000lbs) and a lower stall speed (10kts lower?, due to more lift), so a Rafale should do better than an F/A-18. IMHO, a launch weight of >40,000lbs (>18t) is likely, which would give you at the very least a 3t external payload.

The presumption is faulty! :). A small STOVL carrier isnt sufficient as, even in modest intensity operations, sortie generation rate is the key metric…especially where the carrier deck may be the only source of available tactical airpower. Bottom line airgroup size matters!. You could make the case for multiple small STOVL carriers, but, we get into efficiency issues there!. Rather a larger, more austere, cheaper Strike Carrier would have been a more cost effective solution than a 3bn Euro CATOBAR Fleet Carrier with modest fleet-level performance.

(…) Fair comment, but, what capability has that higher spec delivered. This is my point. For the same money as we are likely to get a pair of CVF’s for – what would a pair of CdeG’s deliver?. No real speed advantage, lesser sortie rate, lower unsupported air ops sustainability offsetting the nuclear propulsion advantage. The only meaningful advantage is conferred by Hawkeye and my personal opinion there is that high endurance UAV’s will soon turn E-2 into little more than an airborne comms relay/offboard control node anyway.

Yes, except that your STOVL strike carrier idea doesn’t have a viable airgroup until 2017 at the very least, at which point CdG will be past her mid-life point! So the austere strike carrier option was rather academic for the French… 😉

In addition, the whole point of investing vast sums of money in a carrier capability is to cover yourself for the worst case scenario: high-end warfare. IMHO, the idea that you should optimize your carriers for high-probability but low-importance conflicts is an example of rather muddied strategic thinking. From that perspective, a well-protected fleet carrier with fixed wing AEW and longer ranged strike aircraft is a much better insurance policy than the tactically more efficient (in terms of sortie rates) but strategically less relevant CVF.

Again, the key metric is sortie generation rate and sustainability. I remain to be convinced that CdeG with a, say, 26 Rafale airgroup is going to get to 75 sorties per day in any sustainable sense. Even with that aircrafts impressive turn-around figures there is a serious amount of work there to generate 3 sorties per airframe, assuming all airframes serviceable, per day.

IMHO, the MN’s 75 sortie target includes Hawkeyes and helos, which would leave 60-65 sorties for Rafale. With 30-32 Rafales, which I’ve shown is a reasonable upper limit in wartime, that’s 2x sorties per aircraft.

For a narrow hull with commensurate internal volume I similarly find it difficult to believe that AVCAT bunkerage, aviation spares and air-ordnance stowage can be as extensive as that we determined we’d need a 65k ton hull to accomodate in order to sustain 75 sorties per day with a larger airgroup. Even with the availability of space otherwise taken up by ships bunkerage.

No, of course CVF has more storage space than CdG. However, not all of that extra storage space is put to use (some of it is just margin for growth, which CdG doesn’t have). And some of it (at least 5,000t) has to be used for bunkerage. The aviation facilities themselves (hangar, aviation fuel, munitions storage) appear to be within 10% of each other.

You seem to be thinking in terms purely of complete peace, & all-out war, so I will repeat: much of what Western forces are engaged in these days is neither peacetime training, nor high-intensity warfare. Without detailed analysis of data which none of us here has, we cannot be certain, but it seems possible that the savings on operating high-performance aircraft could be enough to justify the addition of another type for use in low-intensity conflicts, if that type had operational advantages in such conflicts, & was cheap enough.

(…) You’ve not addressed the use of cheap S-3s in low-intensity conflicts, such as those the UK & France are, & have been for quite a long time, heavily involved in.

I get your argument, and in fact I do see some empirical validity to it, since in the past many countries have tried to hold on as long as possible to their legacy aircraft (Jaguars, Mirage F1s, Super Etendards, F-5s, Skyhawks), because these are cheaper for low-intensity missions.

Along those lines, IMHO the S-3B would be a great, cheap stop-gap for any country that lacks sufficient numbers of land based MPAs/loitering CAS platforms, since there are hardly any of these available for sale on the second hand market. That could be useful for example for the RAF in Afghanistan and the Indian Ocean. In the case of France, the S-3B could be useful in Africa as a supplement for the Atlantique, but for low-intensity CAS missions there are still enough Mirage F1s and Super Etendards left until 2015.

However, I still disagree on the S-3B’s value for carrier based missions. Looking back at the last 20 years, it’s quite clear that carriers don’t often conduct low-intensity missions. If you look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa, low-intensity missions have almost entirely been covered by land-based aircraft, with the exception of Afghanistan in 2002 because of land-basing issues, which is IMHO the only case where S-3Bs could have taken a large share of the burden off the shoulders of more expensive fighters.

In general, carriers have only racked up lots of hours in the high-intensity early stages of conflicts, before reverting to basically a training posture, with low sortie rates. Finally, if the S-3B was really a money saver compared to operating F/A-18s, then why did the USN bin it?