Lokeit seems to me kind of reckless of Saab to claim this, if youre right, havent questioned it myself…
Jet A1 density differs from 0,775 to 0,840. so its more likely to be 38%-41% more fuel. Therefore a round figure with linear asumption “40% more fuel gets you approx. 40% longer”. So maybe youre right. Something are wrong with the data. Hopefully we see some updated data soon in a new offer.
1000 km extra for the first 450 gallon DT may be slightly optimistic, OTOH in the slide set referred to above it also seems to indicate that the tank will be supersonic, which also indicates a surprisingly low drag.
I also have some reasons to believe that the 4075 km range is rather conservative… 😉
LokeThe company should have the better data no doubt, but in this case it makes no sense. Except you want to tell us that the Gripen NG will have a range of 6500 km with 4 drop tanks, because that’s what the presentation suggests by claiming “One drop tank gives the Gripen NG an extra range of approximately 1000 km.“
Note that for the F-35, 30% increase in fuel means 8% increase in range…
Also I am wondering if the Gripen with some loadouts have surprisingly low drag. Consider that NG will be able to SC in a2a config to 250 nm, stay 50 minutes on-station and fly back. Actually it is surprising that it will be able to SC at all, given the relatively weak F414 (compared to e.g. the F-16 engines). The only explanation I can find is that drag is surprisingly low.
So perhaps the drag is quite low also with just one 450 gallon tank, but then drag increases quite a lot.
(there is also something else…. a rumor that the max ferry range of the NG will be much more than 4075 km….)
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/DutchAirForceAssociation_Gripen_2009.pdf
LokePure bias flaming with false sources!
as exemple,
Rafale C is 9.400t last ministery sources!
EF is 12t last consortium source
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eurofighter.com%2Ffileadmin%2Fweb_data%2Fdownloads%2Fextpub%2F01_F22Article_EF_World.pdf&rct=j&q=eurofighter%2012t%20empty%20fuel&ei=YHShTdXlNJO5hAfw9t2HBQ&usg=AFQjCNFqVseakyLb0kufPfZx7BiCHGB2DA&cad=rjain CAP Rafale has a better T/W ratio than EF Gripin SH etc..
is zero fuel mass the same as empty weight?
can you link to the 9400 kg number?
Rafale is an amazing a/c, no doubt…
Edit: “ten tonne class” http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/aircraft-characteristics.html?L=1
Lokestrange, what kind of fuel is needed for the Grippen, mogas ?? LOL
No jet A1, JP4 or JP8 ??
Gripen runs on Jet A1. They ended up in an airbase where only JP5 for the USN F-18 was available…
However since Jet A1 is used for civilian jets, it it normally quite easy to get.
It could be that Gripen can run on the JP5 (after all the RM12 is a modified F404) however it has probably not been tested and approved to run on JP5.
LokeIt is not a question of being biased. This is right or wrong, and as a first tier stakeholder I don’t see him making such a mistake. Besides what would be the point lying since the decision makers can’t be fooled by such a statement if this was wrong.
He is wrong.
In addition to considerable UK government investment in AESA, SELEX Galileo has engaged in a complementary long term programme of spending to develop advanced radar technology. This technology is now mature, product ready, free of export constraints and is the basis of the latest generation of AESA products launched by the Company.
SELEX Galileo has developed modular, scalable AESA technology which underpins a broad family of products to address the airborne radar market. The use of common components such as Transmit Receive Modules (TRMs) supports a competitive cost base. This is further supported by a long standing strategic supply agreement with a semiconductor manufacturer
ensuring a secure source of ITAR-free, low-cost Gallium Arsenide.
LokeMy informations say 4 more tornado on italia, not 4 typhoon.
I also thought it was a mistake but then I saw this:
The RAF is to divert four of its Typhoon fighters to ground attack operations in Libya amid complaints from the rebel leaders that Nato is not doing enough to protect them.
The Typhoons, based at Gioia del Colle in southern Italy, had been policing the no-fly zone while the RAF’s Tornado GR4s carried out attacks on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s ground forces.
But with the Libyan air force apparently unwilling to risk a confrontation with the alliance, the Ministry of Defence said that four Typhoons will now be used to bolster Nato’s ground attack capability.
Could still be a mistake of course, but the way it’s phrased, it looks real to me.
Could this perhaps be in addition to the 4 additional Tornadoes that was recently announced?
LokeIf the price isn’t really an issue as suggested in a previous report why not buying the bigger aircrafts ? This will impact poitively the punch the IAF could bring, especiually when mixed in a modern western platform.
If the price isn’t an issue, then yes go for either Rafale or Typhoon.
However price is always an issue. They will make a short-list and pick L1.
One can of course imagine that requirements have been written in a manner that only Rafale meet them. In which case it will be chosen.
No doubt it is an excellent a/c and right now one of the best fighters out there. Gripen NG will however be much better than the current Gripen C/D, in all respects 😉
LokeIt is not a question of being biased. This is right or wrong, and as a first tier stakeholder I don’t see him making such a mistake. Besides what would be the point lying since the decision makers can’t be fooled by such a statement if this was wrong.
Another possibility could be that the writer of that blog simply misqouted Mr. Adelstenne…
LokeThe IAF also have plenty of light weight jets like new jags or upgraded mirages (provided the deal is signed) and the LCA coming. Even the mig 29 could be somewhat put in this category in terms of range and payload.
Indeed the IAF has quite a large type of jets in its inventory so you can twist the argument in each direction.
If they want a new aircraft for the backbone of their AF, they have to chose the level of operational performance they want. So the choice between a light jet and an heavier one is a strategic choice.
For the “american radar” you can’t say it is a mistake in the sense the hyperbolic statement was on purpose. I don’t think you can say it is a subjective POV. Either it has US parts either it has not. As a important stakeholder in this competion he must know for sure. Or he is not qualified for his job.
THe plan is to buy 126 MMRCA; compare that to 280 SU-30.
Most countries that operate several aircraft types have a large number of medium/light and a lower number of heavies like SU-30 or F-15. Rafale is not “heavy” like the SU-30 or F-15 but the operational costs related to operating a twin-engine will be there.
On the radar: Even if it has US components, we don’t know how critical they are. You also admit that the Rafale has US components but claim that they are not critical (even if some US sources have claimed that they are, and that if the US want to they can impose restriction on their use…). I find this discussion useless in particular on the basis of one statement from the Dassault CEO.
And finally, we don’t know if India will care about those components (if they exist at all). You are making a lot of assumptions on the basis of one statement from Edelstenne who clearly is very biased.
LokeLoke,
You should bring the source as someone more in the know than both you and me brings this fact. It would be very unlikely from Dassault CEO to make such a mistake since he must know all the details of on going competions. (What would you exepect from an Aircraft manufacturer CEO directly involve in the competition ?)
Well he already made a mistake when he called it an American radar, it clearly is not.
What I would expect from a CEO directly involved in the competition may not be relevant, however what I observe is an attempt to spread FUD about the competitors. His statements are not objective statements from an independent analyst but highly subjective statements from a competitor. And you want me to accept that as a sole source for this?
LokeIt is smaller and single engine so it is entirely logical that it is cheaper. (about 40% less than a rafale).
But you won’t have the figher power and the range nor the retained performance with heavier loads. As shown in the lybian conflict significant sustain figher power at long range is an important factor to be effective. If you put aside the ToT or early develomment issues the choice between a lighter and a heavier aircraft depends of your level of ambition and operational capability search. For point sky-policing or light attack missions the gripen would be very relevant. But for sutsain intensive campains where you need to destroy most of your ennemy infrastructure then heavier aircrafts are more capable.
And that’s why AIF got the SU30-MKI — 280 of them. 😉
Besides, people still tend to think about Gripen C and not Gripen NG. The NG will be able to lift substantially more than the C. It has moved up two notches.
Lokecurious, i send defense specialised sources, and you send your own “maths”!
Well I send you something even better:
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Saab_OfferGripenNG_170409.pdf
How do you define fly-away? What is included?
In the link above it is specified what is included, both in terms of equipment, simulators, mission support systems, threat libraries, maintainance ground support systems, RF planning system, training and support, etc. etc..
The price is 56 million Euros per Gripen NG. No need to talk about Gripen C or leaks from Brazil.
Also note that this is not Fly-away, but includes a lot of stuff.
What would a comparable Rafale package cost?
LokeAs for the “american radar” we understand it was during a press conference and that was hyperbolic. But that does not invalidate the fact that it has some specific US equipment that could pose a problem in terms of ToT.
Is it a fact that it has US components?
Sources please? (independent from Mr. Edelstennes press conference.)
Loke@Loke,
I exepcted this answer, but what do you really know about Selex radar ? Some key components might well be under US controls. Either you have a thourough list of Selex suplliers or your answer is merely speculation. Besides Charles Edelstenne certainly knows what he is talking about…In brazil ToT is still the main factor and latest declarations from Jobim after the Boeing fake leak to reuters was clear : the rafale has a clear edge in this area.
If there are any US components in the Raven then for sure they are also in the Typhoon.
Also Rafale has US components; of course less than Gripen and Typhoon, but they are still there.
Considering the large amount of US equipment India has bought recently I don’t think that a few components will stop them. Edelstenne knows what he talks about? Then why highlight the engine if he knows that the Tejas will be be equipped with the same engine? And when he knows that India has bought a lot of 100% US defence equipment recently.
Also, even if there would be some US components in the Raven, it would still be incorrect to call it an “American radar”. That’s simply not the case. The MMICs are made in Europe, for instance. As is the software. AFAIK, the two most important components in a AESA radar are actually the software and the MMICs. Edelstenne tries to sell an aircraft, that seems quite clear 😉
I am sorry but I don’t think this is a strong argument against Gripen or Typhoon in India.
Anyway instead of speculating why don’t you demonstrate what US components there are in the Raven? You made the claim now back it up!
LokeCharles Edelstennes during a recent press conference at Dassault HQ in St-Cloud :
BS. The radar is not US it’s Swedish/British. India will get the ToT they need.
It is well known that the engine is American — actually it will have the same engine as the LCA… so it seems this is not an issue for India 😉
Sorry but these arguments seems to be not very strong in India.
These arguments were used in Brazil, but now also Brazil seems to be more happy with US components, and may even buy the SH.
Sign In
