hopsalotagain, when the F-35 start doing something really operationally, we’ll be able to compare its effectiveness in what it can do to what others can do THEN… until then it is just an aircraft in development that does pretty much nothing “effectively”
The F-35 is still in development, shocking I know.
hopsalotThe answer to that is at 52:05 in the seminar. The customer (Swedish govt) altered delivery from 2018 to 2019. That might explain why rollout has moved from 2015 to 2016 as well.
http://saab-seminar.creo.se/150312/saabs_annual_gripen_seminar_2015
Ah, so it isn’t late, they just aren’t going to have it ready on the original schedule. :rolleyes:
hopsalotFrom Marcus Weisgerber (Twitter)
You are looking at the future of European fighter manufacturing.
hopsalotGripen seminar
– Gripen E rollout 2016– Mid-2015 target for Brazil contract to become effective
– First Gripen E delivery to Swedish air force 2019
– production learning curve to optimal production reduced from 180 aircraft to 30
– new aircraft development time reduced from 15-20 years to as little as 5 years for SAAB thanks to model-based design and development system
– Gripen E programme on schedule and on budget. Limiting factor is payment milestones (SAAB do not move forward to do further unfunded work if ahead of schedule)
– Bulgaria showing interest in Gripen (I presume C/D)
– Slovakia timescale: aim is to agree a deal this year (C/D)
As recently as last year they were claiming the first flight would be 2015 and first deliveries to the Swedes would b 2018. How is 2016 and 2019 not a delay?
First flight of the lead test aircraft is scheduled for the second half of 2015, with the single-seat asset to be used primarily for airframe and flight control system testing. The next example will be flown in the first half of 2016, and will support tactical systems work. Any required adaptations will be embodied with flight test instrumentation-equipped aircraft 39-10, which will join the test campaign in early 2017 to prove the final E-model configuration.
A first production example will follow close behind, with Saab targeting military type certification in early 2018, clearing the way for deliveries to Sweden and then Switzerland later the same year, in the MS21 software standard.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-reveals-full-gripen-e-design-cost-savings-396977/
hopsalotPoint is, Rafale has a longer range than F-35 (including the poor 8% more range given by external full tanks of F-35). “Furtivity” has its side effects, like very poor aerodynamics.
No, the Rafale doesn’t have longer range in an apples to apples comparison. Don’t make the mistake of thinking you can just lift one number with one set of assumptions off of one stat sheet and another number with different assumptions from another sheet.
hopsalotMore nonsense geez it never ends. Nicolas10 is talking about CFTs which have a minimal effect on subsonic drag. Certainly not 50% of the fuel of the CFT will be lost to drag. Test on the F-16 CFT show that their effect is almost zero on drag in subsonic.
The Rafale’s conformals are exactly as far along as those on the Eurofighter and Super Hornet… that is to say they could be fully developed and ordered but nobody has yet.
Even if they were ordered conformal tanks wouldn’t boost the Rafale’s range to equal that of the F-35, the Rafale would still need external tanks.
As for the large external fuel tanks that the rafale carries, they have a shape optimized for subsonic speed, so here again there won’t be 50% lost to drag.
You think that is a new idea?
After 60 billion of development that’s the least you would expect. :stupid: ( you like this one, don’t you? ).
Yes, you would expect better performance. I think its orders so far make it clear that the performance is there.
hopsalotNew day, same message. Let the Gripen talk be constructive. The constant negative b.s. From you is old. People didn’t endlessly bash you Tomcat versus MiG-25 thread. Leave this one well enough alone already.
Yeah, because there aren’t others around here who spend most of their time bashing one plane or another. :rolleyes:
At least he is polite, that is more than can be said for some of the others.
hopsalotWell AASM isn’t a 250lb weapon but a 500lb weapon in its current form. I hope a 250lb version emerges though cause we need lower lethality weapons and range would be increase for SEAD work & others.
When they order 2000lb AASMs, they might as well order CFTs to go with them. Already developed, flight tested & all the planes produced are CFT ready.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235850[/ATTACH]
I wasn’t the one that raised the potential existence of the 2,000lb variant. Conformals could be fitted to the Rafale, but various external fuel options have been considered for the F-35 as well.
With undeveloped 2000lb AASM, I guess you can add those already tested CFTs. That’s 8140 kg of fuel.
A Rafale will go further with 8140kg of fuel than the F35 with 8400.
No it won’t. You are forgetting about the drag penalty imposed by the external carriage of fuel and weapons for the Rafale. The rough rule of thumb for drop tanks is that only half of the fuel actually goes toward extending range and the other half is lost to the extra drag imposed by the tank itself. The heavy bomb, T-pod, and missile load would also impact the Rafale’s range much more significantly than on the F-35. (because it is all hanging out in the wind)
Weight induced drag will count on the F35 even for internal carriage, and if you want to carry 4 2000lb weapons you’re going to have to carry at least two externally. If you want to carry 6 AAMs like the Rafale can, you’re going to have to carry 4 of them externally too.
Yes, that means the F-35 would be carrying 2 bombs externally and perhaps 4 missiles. The Rafale would be carrying all 4 bombs, a drop tank, its targetting pod, and all six missiles.
You are talking about the difference between this:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235860[/ATTACH]
and this
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235861[/ATTACH]
Ok, not exactly obviously, but the general idea remains.
So no the F35 doesn’t make sense for that many users, except if you want to be the puppet of the USA & only go to war when they send you & support you.
Nic
:stupid:
The F-35 requires far less external support than any 4th generation fighter. It can fly low level if needed, but in most cases that simply won’t be necessary.
You have it exactly backwards.
hopsalotKeep on believing your t/w values will rock the world.
Gripen c second on this impressive list.
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/comparing-modern-western-fighters/
That dude needs to lay off the paint chips.
hopsalotWhaaat??
Of course it can’t carry as many of the larger bombs, why do you even talk about something so obvious? You really like to waste people’s time, don’t you?
The SDB II and SPEAR III are good for small targets. The AASM kit has the ability to be usable on large bombs, so can attack a larger variety of targets. Isn’t that obvious enough that I have to waste time to say it?
If you want to compare 250lb weapons, then we can compare the SDB-I, SDB-II, and/or SPEAR cap III to AASM.
If you want to compare heavier weapons, then for the F-35 we would be talking about JSOW, etc.
There is no point comparing a 2,000 lb AASM to a 250lb SDB. They aren’t competitors.
Well, thanks for the info, I have known that for 10 years if not 15… ( Am I wasting my time here? )
The rafale can carry at least 5 2000lbs AASMs, which have a significant stand off range at low alt, again. The JSOW has a 500lbs warhead, so is comparable to a 1000lbs weapon. The BROACH variant is comparable to a larger warhead I agree against hard targets that need a high level of penetration. The JSOW-ER has a good range, but a small warhead and a relatively high cost…
Yes, a Rafale should be able to carry 5 x 2,000lb AASMs. Of course since it would be carrying a 10,000lb bomb load, plus missiles, plus a T-pod, and would be relying on internal fuel… it better not have to carry them very far. (especially if you envision flying at low altitude)
As for the 2,000lb AASM’s standoff range, what is it? “Significant,” is rather a flexible term. I am having a hard time imagining a 2,000lb munition getting much out of a rocket booster.
As for cost, a JSOW starts around the same price as an AASM. If you need more capability then you pay more. A 300NM range, LO cruise missile with a datalink for updates in flight can hardly be compared directly to a rocket boosted JDAM.
It can carry 4 2000lbs AASMs + the large centerline tank. In that configuration it would have a pretty good range, probably comparable to the F-35A.
A 2,000l fuel tank holds ~1600kg of fuel. A Rafale with just a centerline tank would have 4,700kg (internal) + 1600kg (external) for a total of 6,300kg.
An F-35 carries 8,400kg of fuel.
That also ignores the drag part of the equation, which would strongly favor the F-35 as all of its fuel, it T-pod, and two of the JSOW would be internal. While the Rafale would be flying in a heavy configuration with four heavy munitions, a targeting pod, and a large subsonic fuel tank.
Bottom line there is no way the Rafale would come close to the F-35’s range, and that assumed they both flew the same profile. If the Rafale had to fly at low altitude there would be no comparison.
I won’t repeat the same thing for the 17th time, will I?
One can’t help but wonder. The only reason a buyer would go with something like the AASM is because they anticipate needing to operate at very low altitude. It is a good match for the Rafale, but wouldn’t offer anything to the F-35.
edit————–
This does actually remind me of the HVPW intended for the F-35:
http://aviationweek.com/blog/afrl-moves-ahead-bunker-buster-f-35
hopsalotEmpty weigth of 7 ton. for Gripen E ? Saab cites 8,0 ton. since midi 2014 :
http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/Air/Gripen/Technical%20brochure,%20Gripen%20NG,%20English.pdfSo, it is 8,0 ton., not 7,1 ton. for Gripen E. Additional 900 kg, i.e., 12.7% more empty weight than Saab projected data from 2007-2013.
Have you calculated the T/W ratio for Gripen E ? Do it for Gripen E and Super Hornet. It will show Super Hornet has better T/W than Gripen E. Advice : don’t compare Gripen E T/W with Eurofighter and Rafale…
…or the F-35A for that matter. :rolleyes:
hopsalot@hopsalot
You might not think so, but you are comparing appels with pears here. Gripen e is a new fighterplane, everything(Redesigning fully was considered unnecessary when fullfilling all goals). They don’t use the old stuff in the new planes exept a few wires or so that is compatible. The mid-life upgrades you talk about (f16/f15) are things exchanged on a plane.
No, the Gripen NG is not a “new fighter plane.” They are new production, as are the F-15SA, and F-16 block 60, but like the F-15SA and F-16 block 60 they are extensive updates to existing designs.
Accept Gripen is almost 20 years younger then f16 and is built with another config, obviously (EFtypoon1994/rafale1986) more advanced(canard etc) there is a reason (science) they all look alike. And im guessing you are refering to the silent eagle? Wholly different and humongos gigant plane that is super expensive to buy and to drive and is worse then all the canards in aoa flight.
Gripen is a younger design than the F-15 or F-16, that at least is true. The F-15SA is not the Silent Eagle. Google is your friend.
It makes no sense updating expensive,old, non advanced fighters if they can’t be better at what they are supposed to do. Gripen c is still the most advanced light fighter in the world. Gripen E will be for 20 more years living as long as f16. Nothing strange really.
Again, you seem to be running up against some limitations in your knowledge. The F-16 Block 60 was not an update to an old airframe. They are new-production aircraft that benefited from an extensive redesign.
Ok, i dunno if you read my last comment at all, but i will try again here: IF you go with, say mach 1.1 speed, supercruise, fully armed with a smaller engine you might need 100% thrust to achieve that. If you change engine you might achieve the same with the new engine with just 80% trust. And also aerodynamics and engine sfc plays a part here. It definitely will NOT pull 20% more fuel. End.
The Gripen is a substantially heavier aircraft, requiring substantially greater electrical power for its avionics, and has a 20% more powerful engine. It is going to burn more fuel. Exactly how much more fuel will vary, but 20% is a good ballpark guess.
You don’t know?, the f-35 engine doesn’t work and that the missiles doesn’t fit etc etc endless problems……f-35 is still a prototype(not officially ofc, i think so), and if you looked at the picture i posted you see a f-35 with engine problems taking a swim.
Ah, now we are just getting stupid. The F-35 is going operational this year. There have already been more than 100 production F-35’s delivered with the production rate climbing sharply. (planned to rise to 120 per year by 2020, more than the entire Gripen NG order book)
The F135 engine did encounter an issue where certain maneuvers could damage the engine while nearly new. A fix has already been identified.
As for “missiles” not fitting, perhaps you are thinking of the SDB-II fit issue on the F-35B. That only applies to the F-35B, not the F-35A or C, and isn’t a major issue because the SDB-II won’t be operational on the F-35 until after the fix is incorporated into the F-35B.
hopsalotSPEAR III has a much smaller warhead, so no, it cannot substitute for the AASM requirement against a lot of targets.
Well, now you are adding a lot of complexity to the problem. A Rafale can’t carry nearly as many of the larger AASM missiles. If you want to compare capability against moving targets (which are more or less by definition not hardened) then the SDB-II or SPEAR cap III are the correct comparison.
If you want to move this discussion to hitting much bigger/harder targets then the Rafale would be carrying much smaller numbers of the heavier AASM variants, while the F-35 would likely shift to JSOW or JSOW-ER (powered). An F-35 can carry 6 JSOW (2 internal).
In general the F-35 has a substantially greater heavy load capability than the Rafale. An F-35 can carry 6 x 2,000lb JDAM, 6 x JSOW, or 6 x JSM, along with 18,000lbs of fuel, a targeting pod, and 4 x AAM.
A Rafale could theoretically carry 5 x 2,000lb class weapons, but only at the cost of giving up all its external fuel. A more realistic configuration would include at least wing tanks, which would limit a Rafale to 3 x 2,000lb weapons.
Agreed. The Armee de l’air could have had easily a glide bomb, given that MBDA makes the diamondback kit.
I agree that MBDA could produce a glide bomb, but the wing kit is not the hard part.
The US air services have not shown interest in missiles such as the AASM, but they could well benefit from such a weapon. It is true that the french AASM costs a lot but the high costs takes into account the R&D. Build in large number the production cost would be quite affordable. I am not saying that the USAF/USN should get the AASM in particular, but a similar weapon is much cheaper than a cruise missile, and gives enough standoff range to increase the survivability of non stealth planes coming at very low altitude. Personally I like the concept.
The US doesn’t feel it needs a weapon in that class. With aircraft like the F-35, SDB or JSOW would offer more than sufficient range from medium/high altitude. (70+ miles for a JSOW released at high altitude.) If they really felt they needed a low altitude launch capability and/or greater range they would likely go with something like a JSOW-ER, which would extend the JSOW’s range to 300 NM.
hopsalot@hopsalot
“newer engines (+20% fuel consumption in the Gripen NG’s case)”
How did you manage to find the figures for that ? Did you simply take the increased thrust and poff 20% more fuel consumption? Its a new type of engine lower sfc and lower heat, higher pressure etc AND still is cheaper to buy and maintain. In fact higher power engine could mean lower fuel consumtion. You arn’t exactly flying mach 2 all year around are you ?
The F414 is indeed an improved engine over its F404 predecessor, but with 20% greater thrust its fuel consumption will be roughly 20% greater. (Yes there have been incremental improvements in fuel efficiency, but not nearly enough to offset the thrust growth.)
Also Gripen E is new built as a 4+++ gen as anything, it is not revamped. The desision where made to keep alot of its old structures because they simply can’t be much better.
It is a moderately involved update to an existing design. An up-rated engine, new avionics, and airframe tweaks to carry more internal fuel. That is quite similar to what has been done to a whole list of other 4th generation fighters. I am not saying it isn’t a good idea, a nice upgrade package, and an all around good jet. What it isn’t is an all new design.
Dont even get me started on the generation talk…f-35 arn’t 5gen it doesn’t have continuos supercruise. Comparing the two you will se gripen E lack pure stealth config (only extremly low rcs) and f-35 lacks supercruise. Not 5 gen According to LM’S own list.
To be frank f-35 can’t be counted as a fighter jet. It’s a stealth mini bomber weapons delivery platform, perfect for first day attack and are specialized for just that thing. I like it, but not as the only type of aircraft in my inventory.
It seems nobody told Saab…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235770[/ATTACH]
Theres still some time before f-35 are ready and Gripen E . Gripen E should be flying with its new frame this year, but it can go like this if you are flying new plane models =)
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Something garbled?
hopsalotThe Swedish situation seems to be very strange. The government seems to expect SAAB to design and build fighter aircraft at the cost agreed between themselves and SAAB. SAAB seems to accept this strange way of handling procurement in contrast to how many other contractors in other countries prefer to operate – they do not feel bound to design and build fighter aircraft at the cost agreed with their government. I find it amusing that the Swedes should do things in such an unusual way when many governments are quite prepared to be taken for a ride by the contractors they choose to use.
One of the funny side effects of the disciplined approach adopted in Sweden is that costs are kept low. Claims of low costs may amuse some people but low costs are hardly surprising, really.
Again, there is nothing whatsoever noteworthy about the fact that Saab is developing a mid-life update for a fighter that first flew in 1988. Take a look at the F-16 Block 60 or the F-15SA if you like. Both are similarly involved updates that resulted in the significant majority of each aircraft’s avionics (and in the F-15SA’s case, its entire flight control system) being replaced. Both were undertaken with a fixed-price contract on a fairly short timeline.
Sign In
