Armed UpdateWhat’s next Gripen outrange Rafale and B52?
Armed Update“Official combat radius” are too vague to judge the range of an aircraft since loiter times and flight profile are not published in the statement. Unless two aircraft are measured on the same scale, comparing two Wikipedia numbers is pointless. F-35 has greater range than Eurofighter according to British.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/07/09/f35-uk-british-air-force/86892660/
Britain’s combat air fleet will be based around the Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35B once the RAF’s Tornado strike jet is pensioned off in 2019.
Taylor said the F-35A could bring something to the force mix the other jets couldn’t match.
“The F-35A offers you a greater range and greater payload. There may be space for an ‘A’ variant so we will look at ‘A’ and ‘B’s in the future, but not the ‘C’s,” Taylor said. “The F-35 and Typhoon have complimentary qualities but the Typhoon is not low-observable, it can’t get to where the F-35 can get to.”
The best estimate of how one has more range than the other, is looking at how much fuel they carry and what type of engine they along with the plane profile.
Gripen series is too small to outrange anything. It probably won’t be able to outrange the Eurofighter judging by the lower fuel capacity and less T/W and more draggier when carry tanks the same size due to it’s smaller size itself.
Armed UpdateAh good news, thanks Spud. Hilarious going on this forum. Never hear this level of stupidity that cannot be corrected after years of evidence.
I am ROFLMAO on how ignorant people are. GENERAL flight knowledge is not even known. Wing loading alone determines agility???? Hilarious people don’t understand the concept of body lift.
The F-35 isn’t even my favorite airplane(you can tell by my Avatar). It’s hilarious how idiots are so invested in hating it, denying every source, having zero concept of the laws of physics, finding every F-35 ineffeciency to justify their claims, claiming how their low research funding of their sub-par 4th Gen can outmatch our stealth fighter, and in love with some other 4th Generation low tier aircraft that isn’t selling as well as the JSF.
Armed UpdateUsing that same reasoning all F-35 variants have the same lift…
As I said previously, you really can’t tell anything of use simply from the fact that one aircraft has a higher ceiling than another.
Doesn’t the F-35C have best service ceiling? They are all designed the same speed, the one with best wing loading which is the C model is going to get the best lift.
Armed UpdateNo, why would you expect more lift?
Same speed yet higher ceiling.
Armed UpdateThe F-16C added weight, increasing its wingloading, but it also improved its power to weight ratio quite a bit.
The Gripen NG is also adding weight, increasing its wingloading, but it isn’t improving its power to weight ratio at all.
We can expect the Gripen NG to fly like a heavier Gripen C basically.
But doesn’t the Gripen E have more lift for the same speeds? I don’t expect the acceleration to be better since its heavier and draggier but in sustained turn rate I think it will be slightly better since more lift.
Armed UpdateYou really can’t extrapolate anything useful about the Gripen NG’s maneuverability from its service ceiling without a heck of a lot more information.
The Gripen NG is aerodynamically almost identical to the Gripen C. There is no way minor aerodynamic tweaks have added enough lift to offset the its much higher wingloading.
Outside of messageboards like this one few are concerned with incremental improvements in kinematic performance anyway. The Gripen NG is designed to bring improved range, payload, endurance, and sensors but it has almost certainly sacrificed kinematic performance to get those improvements. This is essentially the same logic that resulted in the Super Hornet, F-16 Block 60, etc.
F-16C sacrifices aren’t big compared to F-16A. More powerful engine gives more lift and better sustained turn. The F-16A will turn harder but C can just boom and zoom.
Same with Gripen E IMO. The drag added is very little compared to the massive Super Hornet redesign.
Armed UpdatePeople in this thread, including you, have argued that the F-16C’s higher wingloading undermined its maneuverability relative to the F-16A despite its much higher power/weight ratio. Now you are claiming that an aircraft with basically identical aerodynamics, much higher wingloading, and no power advantage isn’t going to suffer? Sorry, that doesn’t add up.
The wing loading of the Gripen E shouldn’t too much of a problem. Since it has a bit higher service ceiling despite the same speed, I assume they added better lifting bodies plus the stronger engine to sustain those speeds. The Gripen E is a longer airplane however, so it will suffer more in the pitch due to the drag caused by the turn, but I doubt it will be by much. And it is draggier in general.
The Gripen E and Gripen C have similar agility it’s safe to say. The Gripen E does not beat the Gripen C in agility. The philosophy of a bigger engine for better power vs smaller frame will be similar to Super Hornet v Hornet.
The F-16A is more manuverable, but that doesn’t mean the F-16C is less agile. It can simply beat the F-16A in other areas like climb and acceleration.
no, its the norwegians that claim gripen out-perform their F-16, i’m unable to google it,
but someone posted the interview in the norwegian newspaper, pretty sure it was @loke
Here is what I found.
Gripen’s acceleration in sub-sonic and trans-sonic domains: faster than F/A-18C/D and M2000-5, but slower than F-16C.
Gripen’s instaneous turn rate: significantly better than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, and M2000-5.
Gripenss sustaneous turn rate: worse than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, but better than M2000-5.
The Gripen achieved the AoA of more than 100 degrees during the flight test, but due to the reason for flight safety, the normal setting of the upper limit of the AoA for the Gripen?s FCS is 50 degrees now.
Gripen’s frontal RCS: about 1/5 of F/A-18C/D’s, 1/3 of F-16C/D Block40/42’s, and 1/2 of Mirage-2000-5’s.
Detective range of PS-05A radar (JAS-39): a little shorter than AN/APG-65/73 (F/A-18C/D), but 20% longer than RDY (M2000-5), and 40% longer than the AN/APG-68 for F-16C/D Block40/42.
So Gripen can beat the F-16 in the instantaneous turn and AoA and the F-16 sustained turn and acceleration. The battle would look quite similar to Hornet v F-16. The Gripen would be better at low speeds and forcing the F-16 to overshoot and get that quite kill while the F-16 had the advantage in higher speeds and would try to beat it in a turning and climbing battle.
Armed UpdateI am pretty confident time will prove the F35 fanboys wrong on maneuvrability. After more than a decade you cannot even find an F35 doing a proper vertical loop or proper fast barel rolls (without sinking). Current demos are far behind other 4th gen fighters in every regards. When you have such a fat fuselage with short wings, you don’t need to spend much time on PR reports that try to revigor F35 reputation in public opinion…Of course don’t expect anything very negative in these reports/charts. They obviously have an agenda and are certainly not neutral. I know that everyone does the same but here the distortion with reality is so important that it is not credible. Only diehards F35 fanboys would take them for granted. If this was supported by proper “first class” demonstration it would gain a bit of credibility but we are far from that.
So your only proof the F-35 sucks at agility is it’s fuselage and wings?
1. The fuselage is Super Hornet size.
2. Lift doesn’t need to be provided just by wings, it can be through body lift.
All the reports are lies? That is too difficult to believe. As you can see through the multiple videos it does have agility.
Armed UpdateLemme get this straight.. We should rely on a pilot’s account whenever he talks about the F-35.. but when he talks about a Gripen, then it’s suddenly not valid.. 🙂 makes sense
When did the pilot say Gripen beats the F-16 in kinematics? He just got a good record.
Armed Updateand F-4 doesnt have a very high wing load ? is that what you base the delusion on ?
What delusion? Well you claim wing loading is going to be huge problem at high altitude but the F-16 has a huge wing loading compared to the F-4 which has a high wing loading as well….but the margins are still huge when you compare the two. So the F-4 by your logic should do much better…..but it doesn’t, the F-16 turns circles around it.
F-16 was the first fighter with relaxed stability
And? The lifting body cause by fuselage lift and low drag is still key to the reason why it can outturn larger winged fighters.
they arent on par, as proven by most exercises
Prove it. If you read the magazine Rafale vs F-16 Block 52 Greek pilots faced Rafale pilots. The Rafale got the edge in BVR however in dogfights both were quite impressive although functioned quite differently.
F-16 vs Gripen, F-16 has superior sustained turn but Gripen instantaneous according to SWAF. This also debunks the myth of high wing loading meaning bad sustained turn rate.
Armed UpdateAt very high altitude sure , but who will dogfight at 40K-50K feet
At 40K-50K feet, wing loading is that an important parameter if you already have the lift and speed advantage.
F-4 Phantom for example has terrible wing loading compared to MiG-17 and even MiG-21 however in Vietnam, most climbing battles, the F-4 just boom and zooms the crap out of them.
Armed Updatewrong on all accounts, and wing load is going to be a problem at altitude
Hilarious. You seriously think an F-4 Phantom is going to outturn an F-16 altitude? F-16 has a very high wing loading yet it has very good sustained turn of Cold War US fighters.
The Rafale and Gripen do not blow the F-16 out of the water in any fashion in terms of agility. They are on par as proven in most exercises.
Armed UpdateKeep in mind these are all 7 G limited F-35s. Wait till FOC, that 28 degrees/s sustained turn is going to blow all the other US fighters that is not the Raptor out of the water.
Its safe to say F-35 can take on Gripen/Rafale in dogfighting performance with that kind of lift. Typhoon and advanced Sukhois and the Raptor are the top of agility ladder.
Armed UpdateWing loading shouldn’t be a problem. The F-16 has a very high wing loading compared to the F-4 Phantom and can simply outturn it since it has so much lift in it’s body. The F-35 has a very impressive lift being able only to fly Mach 1.6 yet go around higher than most smaller fighters. Right now it is G limited but it’s High AoA often makes up for this. It a straight up turning battle the F-35 can easily outcompete with F-16, F-15, and F/A-18 series in turning. And in a climbing battle, the F-35 engines can simply just overpower less powerful engines.
Sign In
