hopsalotBut how much extra fuel will it burn? Cruising at the same speed with the same load, how will fuel consumption compare? Is drag increased? Empty weight is about 3% more, is all. For the same flight profile, how much extra fuel will be burned?
Gripen E can carry more fuel – but that doesn’t mean it has to on every flight. The extra internal fuel might allow it to save fuel on some missions, by not needing external tanks, or being able to carry smaller tanks, thus reducing drag.
Sure, there is no simple apples comparison. As a general rule though greater installed thrust results in greater fuel consumption. There have been many fighters over the years that have seen their thrust grow without major changes to their airframe, so I believe the rule of thumb has some pretty good precedent.
hopsalotWow! JSR has actually put forward some relevant and rational points (well except for his fuselage spine fetish)…wonders will never cease:stupid:
It is reasonable to assume that the RD-93’s performance has improved over the years… but he hasn’t come close to offering any reasonable support to his original assertion, that the RD-93 has a better power to weight ratio than the F414.
It all boils down to “Look at the latest Mig-29’s cockpit! The latest version of the RD-93 is installed in the latest version of the Mig-29! The Mig-29 has gotten heavier, therefor the RD-93 must have a better power to weight ratio than the F414!!”
hopsalotIt is a pretty simple graph actually.
It is a linear presentation of binary capabilities. Ie, does ac have modern datalinks Y/N, does it have sensor fusion Y/N and in the comparison between Rafale, Eurofighter and Super Hornet the following capabilities probably where added.
Carrier capable? Y/N (FA18EF + Rafale)
Nuclear capability? Y/N (Only Rafale)That explains why the Su35 isnt ahead (after all it has superior range, superior payload capability etc to the others as well as a humongus radar). But it doesnt carry nukes and it isnt carrier capable.
And the binary capability points probably have different weight. I can imagine stealth being pretty high on that scale. This is the only way I can get the FA18EF get higher points than Su35.
As usual it is difficult to tell if you are trying to be serious…
If what you were describing were the case then the F-16 would be right up there with the Eurofighter and Gripen NG, etc… it has everything they do but perhaps the sensor fusion… but it does have nuclear delivery capability.
Similarly the original Gripen wouldn’t be ranked even with the F/A-18C… which has all of its capability plus both carrier and nuke capability. The F-35 meanwhile would lead everyone, as it has carrier, nuke, stealth, sensor fusion and everything else frankly. (not to mention vertical landing)
While we are at it it is hard to see how the F-22 would be tops in such a brain dead approach, because it of course is not carrier nor nuclear strike capable…it is barely even multi-role. (and has some fairly significant avionics limitations as well)
etc etc
This chart clearly refers primarily to air to air capability. There, at least arguably, the Gripen NG could be on the same level with the SH, Rafale, and Eurofighter, the F-22 would lead everyone, with the F-35 and PAK FA in between the F-22 and the best of the 4th generation jets.
Naturally, as usual, if that wasn’t the outcome you would prefer to believe in then it must not be the case. :stupid:
hopsalotIt doesn’t even make sense from an avionics PoV, why would F-22 rank above JSF & Gripen NG if the painting revolve around avionics ?
a better question yet is: Why bother to give an outcome if input data are missing altogether ??!
How would i verify a single piece of result without a single piece of input data ? when even scale are duly missing !
or am i suppose to take PR word for it, perhaps ?
It is clearly primarily an air to air comparison. Everything falls into place that way.
hopsalotThe F414G engine of JAS39E is cheaper than the RM12 of JAS39A-D, despite its higher thrust.
The RM12 is an F404 modified by the Swedes to give more thrust, reliability, & increased resistance to bird strikes, & built in Sweden in pretty small numbers. The F414 has all the extra thrust – & a lot more – & is built in much larger numbers in the USA, bringing down the cost considerably. The F414G is a small modification for single engine operation, which does not add significantly to the cost. I think GE incorporated the main Volvo RM12 improvements into the F414 (parts of it are made by Volvo), so there is no loss of other performance offsetting the greater thrust.
So, the extra thrust adds absolutely nothing to the purchase price of Gripen NG. Au contraire – it saves money.
Well, the X-axis in that chart is “life cycle cost”, not just procurement cost. Even if the F414 is no more expensive to purchase than an F404 the additional fuel costs will impact life cycle cost.
hopsalotThought this could be relevant to add.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223986[/ATTACH]
Do note that Dasault only put two EFTs on Gripen in their comparison and three on FA18EF and Rafale. Combat radius in other words is +1700km or +919nm
Ofc it’s from Signatory: http://gripennewsthread.blogspot.se/2013/12/mer-om-brasilien.html
There may well be other limiting factors that weren’t spelled out, maximum runway length, required cruise altitude, ability to make it back to base after dropping tanks and combat, etc.
hopsalotIt took a while, but eventually i had a look at the link were there dreadful PR painting came from,
and it turns out there was also some substance on that presentation.
It’d be great if SAAB stick to the useful stuff, with substance.
Now add turn around and sortie rate, and you’ll have a very impressive sell technique, as well as product.
We may add on this presentation the strategic value of freedom of deployment when no particular infrastructure are needed,
such as the opening phase of Afghanistan.I get it that you want to stress operational cost, but do refer to Jane’s for comparison purposes,
rather then dimensionless paintings that are already flooding the market[ATTACH=CONFIG]223987[/ATTACH]
Sounds like a limited version of what the Marines are planning for the F-35B/Osprey combination.
That package of F-35Bs and MV-22 could also move ashore to implement the USMC’s distributed operations concept, where small number of fighters would be based at multiple austere airfields, Schmidle says. The MV-22s would support the jets with cargo hauls and aerial refueling, he says. The jets would also move every few days to complicate the enemies’ targeting problem.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-usmc-explores-f-35b-operating-concepts-387420/
hopsalotLook again and you will notice that the red dotted line is lined-up with the Eurofighter, and that the Rafale and SH are slightly higher on the capability. Thus the implication is that Saab claims the NG is slightly ahead of the Typhoon on capabilities, but not ahead of the Rafale and SH. This is marketing speech and the differences on the capability axis seem to be minor. Also it seem they claim Su-35 is on the same capability level as Gripen NG, Typhoon, Rafale and SH, not below.
Fair enough, I guess I was looking at the approximate center of the aircraft as where they were ranked but it does look like Saab is using the tip of the nose.
The interesting thing is that they indicate F-16 is significantly behind NG/Rafale/Typhoon/SH/Su-35 in capabilities… a bit surprising perhaps but it may explain why the F-16 has lost out in India, Brazil, Switzerland, Malaysia, and a few other places. It also confirms my “world view” that the F-16 is a 4.0 gen a.c. and NG/Rafale/Typhoon/SH/Su-35 are 4.5 gen.
Honestly I don’t think there is much disputing this. The F-16 is still competitive commercially because it is an incredible value and it has a massive user base… but it went operational decades before the Rafale/Typhoon/SH… and the Gripen NG/Su-35 are another decade behind those aircraft. (Assuming you count the Gripen NG and Su-35 as truly “new” aircraft.) The Gripen NG will first fly in a couple years putting it 40 years newer than the F-16.
Why do you think the life cycle costs claims are unrealistic? One of the main aims of Saab was to break the cost curve — a few things seem to indicate that they have actually succeeded in that.
I don’t doubt that the Gripen NG will be cheaper than the Eurofighter/Rafale/SH. The main thing I question in that chart is whether they will be able to keep their costs steady moving from the original Gripen to Gripen NG. The fact that the NG has nearly 20% more thrust makes me skeptical of that by itself.
I will also note that this chart doesn’t appear to show the ludicrous 4:1 ratio in operating costs that the Janes report Saab commissioned did. (so that suggests this is at least more serious than that one…)
hopsalotEngine installed on single engine fighter will be heavier than one twin engine fighter. so nothing surprising. what surprising this that Gripen NG will gain a lot of wait once it is certified with F414 engine.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here and don’t see how it is relevant to the discussion of the RD-93 and F414’s power to weight ratios.
It is performance understatement on all official websites and brochures.
Even if your assertion (as I understand it) that all Russian systems out-perform their advertised specs, that wouldn’t do much to prove the RD-93’s power to weight ratio is better than that of the F414. The F414 exceeds the best available figures for the RD-93 by a large enough margin that even if the RD-93’s actual performance exceeded its spec sheet, (which if true should be easy enough to substantiate given that there are literally thousands of RD-93s in service with dozens of countries…) that still wouldn’t allow you to argue that the RD-93 out-performs the F414.
If A > B, and C > B … what does that say about how A relates to C?
yes. only installed power to weight ratios.
No, the original discussion is about their power to weight ratio. You started trying to muddy things by introducing “installed power to weight ratios” later. (not that you have provided even a single source for that either…)
sources? what you see in video are more reliable than some paper specifications.
Videos of air shows do not allow an observer to determine the power to weight ratio of the engines powering the aircraft in the video.
You have yet to provide a single legitimate source.
hopsalotWell pardon me but talk about capability without specifying what exactly is so cappable is a waste of air,
leave that to L.M. & Swizz newspapersed: To clarify, this is the all too usual scale-less dimensionless staple diagram used within military aviation,
with not one single data beside some superlatives.
This is amateurish and hold no value, if you got a reason for the statement, spit it out.
They are presumably talking about air to air. Nothing else makes sense given the Gripen NG’s ranking near the other 4.5 generation fighters and the F-22’s placement above all others. (which really only makes sense if the rankings were primarily about air to air)
hopsalotIn a presentation made recently in Brazil, Saab showed the slide below:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223978[/ATTACH]
Link to the event (in Portuguese only): http://www.aeroin.net/profiles/blogs/palestras-e-visitas-t-cnicas-marcaram-a-ii-aerocb#.Urmx6PRDuSq
Hah, something for everyone in that graphic isn’t there? :applause:
Saab ranks the Rafale, Eurofighter, and Super Hornet as essentially tied both in both price and performance, and includes Gripen NG as slightly ahead in performance but of course way ahead in price. (seems more than a little optimistic on both counts, but then it is marketing… )
If that weren’t enough… all of the above were ranked ahead of the Su-35 in both price and performance, and well behind the F-35, PAK FA, and F-22 in performance.
Saab at least ranks the F-35’s performance as essentially tied with the PAK FA and of course safely ahead of the Su-35. (cue angry letters from the APA crowd…)
It is interesting that even in a marketing presentation Saab doesn’t try to deny the performance advantages of the 5th generation designs. (Proving that they are at least more reasonable than some around here… :rolleyes:)
hopsalotthanks for the link, this is pretty huge
the description of the tanker role reminds me of the A-6, which was 60,000 lb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder#Specifications_.28A-6E.29guess which other aircraft is slated as 80,000 lb 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_IIthis will be tricky for the suppliers, as most designs are about 40,000 lb, and the GA Avenger is 18,000 lb, calling for a radical redesign
it’ll also boost costs considerably
or maybe this is so they can get both the lighter Avenger for Reaper-style missions and the UCLASS for truck missions“Maybe we put a whole bunch of AMRAAMs (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) on it and that thing is the truck,”
as I’ve been suggesting for years, use the expensive manned aircraft with the big radar as the spotter, and the stealthy, “expendable” stealthy missile truck as the shooter
or the other way around, use this beast of a UAV as a mini-awacs, letting super-cruising manned stealth aircraft jump in and out of missile range, at full kinetic power
They are talking about an awfully big aircraft here. It isn’t just the 70-80k lb weight, it is its length… 68 feet. For comparison:
X-47 38 feet long, 62 foot wingspan, 44k lb max takeoff.
F-14 62.75 feet long, 64 foot wingspan 74k lb max takeoff.
A-12 38 feet long, 70 foot wingspan, 80k lb max takeoff.
Global Hawk 47 feet long, 131ft wingspan, 32k lb max
UCLASS 68 feet long, ?? foot wingspan, 70-80k max takeoff.
Given newer materials, engines, electronics, etc, this sounds like a carrier launched bomber.
hopsalotAirshow is very clear indication of aircraft power delivery. and it has been proven beyond doubt on MIG-29K trials on small aircraft carrier like Viki. All those indications were already there from MIG-29OVT performance a decade ago.
It hasn’t proven anything about what we are talking about, the relative power to weight ratios of the RD-93 and the F414.
I gave you example of largest fighter radar manufacturer in Russia. Is that not enough? or you want largest IRST manufacturer source also.
Even if these were legitimate cases of performance being understated neither has anything to do with what we are talking about.
if some thing cannot beat in airshow performance there is 100% certainity you cannot beat in the rest of flight altitude. See the short takeoff distance
lol
of Su-35 in paris airshow. engine is very underrated.
It is like German car engines very underrated for there performance.
We are talking about the relative power to weight ratios of the F414 and RD-93. Have you forgotten?
he has sources but I also has sources of real videos on youtube about performance.
so you have sources to the contrary.
No, you have yet to provide a single source on what we are talking about, the relative power to weight ratios of the RD-93 and F414.
No source, no arguement. You can type and type and type, but unless you have a source it just doesn’t much matter what you say. Vnomad provided sources…
hopsalotThe Janes figures are Gripen $4,700 and F-16 $7,800. That’s not 4:1.
I am not sure how the F-16 entered into this. We were talking about the Eurofighter, which Janes listed at 18,000 per hour. (not quite 4:1 but pretty close considering they listed the Gripen at 4,700.)
If your use of a fighter over its service life hours is only 1% A2G in combat, needing to fly more A2G missions to deliver the same weight of ordnance is not a disadvantage to me. In the bigger picture your overall defence capability is budget limited. The less that training flights, air policing etc cost, the more that is available for frigates, anti-tank missiles or whatever. Flying a more expensive aircraft than you need for 99% of the time is not a cost effective use of your bdfget,
Absolutely, the Gripen makes a lot of sense depending what your needs are.
hopsalotSome “thumbrules” got lost it seems. In the 70s none questioned the yardstick of empty-equipped weight is related to the cost of flight hour for a fighter from the same generation when operated by the same country.
I don’t think anyone here is really questioning whether the Gripen, along with the FA-50 and JF-17, etc, are among the cheapest fighters to operate.
The issue comes in when people start claiming that a you could operate four Gripens for the cost of a single Eurofighter based on a clearly botched comparison. (shoot, according to the numbers some people around here insist on throwing out you could almost operate two entire Gripens for the fuel costs of a single Eurofighter alone 😀 )
The other common issue is when people start in on the whole “Gripen can do everything a Strike Eagle can do…” ignoring that the Gripen’s size, while an asset in a cost comparison is a serious hindrance in comparisons of range, endurance, and carrying capacity.
So once again, the Gripen is a personal favorite of mine, but people need to be realistic about its capabilities.
Sign In
