LokeOr maybe the EW suite of the Rafale, and more specifically spectra, is partly dedicated to pure RCS reduction while the F18 has no such dedicated system.
Luckily for Gripen it does have dedicated, mature EW suite — the Norwegian F-16s often had serious problems finding the Swedish Gripens, I wonder why…?
LokePinot noir … P I N O T … and Rosé are very affordable wines. Even here you’re misinformed 😉
Sorry pinot not pignot.
No French wine is affordable in Norway — it’s you who is misinformed!
Edit:
Dopff & Irion Pinot Noir Rosé 2008, NOK 311,50 = 40 Euros
Perhaps cheap for a French, but not for a poor Norwegian.
Loke.
Well from SAAB point of view unsurprisingly yes. But you have to sort out what come from SAAB communication and the actual truth. The issue is that 95% of the gripen NG comes from SAAB PR so it is hard to know in reality.Pepe insider experience with Indian and FAB officers gives another story. Nothing really bad for an aircraft at an early stage of its development. But as said, to pretend that in evaluation exercises it would perform better or as good as a fully developed aircrafts is wishful thinking. just an example among others : Why wait 2011 for a preproduction radar and around 2013-15 for an operational radar if it would already perform well against current AESA ? There is still a lot of work to be done and although the Gripen NG is not a paper plane it still has a lot of work ahead and is a riskier option than the SH or the Rafale. there is a ladder of risk and the NG is the riskiest option.
About performance its size is a constraint (energy production, carrying capabilities, combat range) but with the advantage of making the aircraft cheaper although not as cheap as SAAB would like to make believe (8000$-10000$) range.
In general you should not take SAAB press release for face value. You are rightfully very skeptical and challenging when someone make a criticism but the same sense of criticism you should have when there are SAAB news.
latest SAAB press release should be considered in the light of what has been revealed by COPAC evaluation. And you can see the limit of the communication exercise.
Well, today is Friday and weekend; today I had an excellent dinner with a French Rose’ (pignot noir) — and for dessert, a Swedish “tertepai” (whatever that is in English) anyway; excellent rose’ and excellent dessert.
Whatever Brazil decides to buy I think they will get an excellent solution. The Rose’ was very good although also very expensive — the dessert was also very good but very affordable 🙂 seems to reflect the situation in Brazil?
On verra.
LokeFARNBOROUGH: Gripen hits back at ‘paper aeroplane’ slurs
Saab moved to counter opponents of its Gripen NG programme yesterday by outlining its ambitious plans to sell the type to nations from a lengthy list of potential buyers, including Brazil and India.
With its two-seat demonstrator now having flown more than 175 times, Saab Aeronautics managing director Lennart Sindahl says: “We are very happy with our position on the NG, and with our suppliers.”
Responding to scepticism voiced by some rival fighter manufacturers, he says: “Come down and see the ‘paper’ aeroplane.”
Saab assembled representatives from supplier companies APPH, General Electric, Martin-Baker and Selex Galileo to underscore the maturity of its demonstrator programme, which is de-risking technologies for a next-generation Gripen that is planned to enter service from 2015.
The aircraft on show here since Monday returned from an evaluation campaign in India during May, where Gripen says “everything worked like clockwork”.
Saab has already been in discussion with Selex over a capability insertion roadmap for the aircraft’s Raven Active Electronically Scanned Array radar stretching out over some 20-30 years, says Bob Mason, the latter’s vice-president of marketing and sales.
Gripen marketing director Hans Rosen says the company is optimistic about entering the final phase of India’s 126-platform medium multi-role combat aircraft contest after the NG’s long-range journey. “I am confident we will make it,” he says. “We really maximised our chances.”
New Delhi is continuing its evaluation process after flying the Gripen and rival Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-16 and RSK MiG-35.
A decision in Brazil, where the NG is again up against the Super Hornet and Typhoon is now “with the politicians”, Rosen says. Meanwhile, the company is not neglecting other sales opportunities, he adds. “Today we have activities in 17 countries, and have also started some talks outside of those.”
LokeThe only de-risk that we believe in is the proper testing of the beast in fully situation.
Seems an extremist approach. Technologies and components are developed separately and integrated then tested in larger components with further integration etc. Also many of the Gripen NG technologies have been under development for many years, long before the first test flight in 2008.
It has been pointed out many times before; development of Gripen NG is not like development of a brand new a/c. It is an evolution of an existing aircraft, this in itself is a risk reductor.
Another thing (that LM has been very good at emphasising for F-35) is that these days computer simulations play a much bigger role than in the past. One should expect very few surprises during testing.
Anyway, nobody can deny that so far the NG Demo has been a big success, with very successful test flights in India. I don’t know when the FAB risk analysis was done, but it may have been some time ago due to the delays. It is therefore probably already out-dated, and will be even more out-dated by the end of this year.
LokeThey say notably:
“The production version will have a larger wingspan and area, and the landing gear will be fully integrated with the wing (on the Demo, gear loads are taken through the wing and fuselage)”
If you had the new engine (larger and/or heavier), it means quite some changes from current Gripen and the Demo one. Maybe this explains the risk factor a bit more.
The Gripen NG risk factors have been de-risked quite a lot since 2008; The development program has proceeded according to plan, with no delays, unlike most other aviation development programs.
Saab has been very succesfull with Gripen A/B, Gripen C/D, and Gripen Demo development; I think they know pretty well what they are doing. By shifting the decision until after the election there will be much more information from Saab and the other partners on the development; I feel confident they will keep going according to plan and by the end of this year it will become evident that the high risk that Pepe and others are trying to convince us about, can be demonstrated to be low.
My prediction is that it will be harder not easier to say No to Gripen NG by the end of this year 🙂
LokeDear Bzzz,
thank you for the links, and thanks for your comments.
LokeBTW, if you’re doubting so much of him, it would be nice to check if his title/occupation are actually right. Did you do so ?
I have no reason to believe that the Pepe Rezende on this forum is not the same Pepe Rezende that works as a journalist in Brazil, I merely expressed some level of confusion due to some of the statements given. I think you misinterpreted me.
Regarding the Rafale/SH stealth feature, you act like if they were equivalent by definition. How can you say so ? Couldn’t one be stealthier by default than the other ? If so, which one and how could it play regarding full load stealthiness ?
I never said they were equal, I just found the “1% RCS of SH” to sound rather fantastic (as did several others), however perhaps the explanation was the use of Spectra on Rafale as Pepe seems to indicate in a later posting, vs SH perhaps without EW.
And about Gripen NG, it’s almost troubling you forgot to mention this article from Aviation Week “Sweden Will Buy New Gripen”.
They say notably:
“The production version will have a larger wingspan and area, and the landing gear will be fully integrated with the wing (on the Demo, gear loads are taken through the wing and fuselage)”
If you had the new engine (larger and/or heavier), it means quite some changes from current Gripen and the Demo one. Maybe this explains the risk factor a bit more.
I saw that article but obviusly I did not read it properly and did not notice the above. The reason was that I have been on vacation for some time with no access to internet and had quite a lot to catch up on.
I do notice however that you find this “almost troubling”; could you elaborate on that? I hope you are not trying to do what you are accusing me of doing?
Anyway, thanks for pointing out the above text from the Aviation Week article.
LokeRafale has Spectra, but don’t forget that Gripen comes with EWS-39, which has been a mature product for many years already — the version for Gripen NG will be substantially improved of course 🙂
LokeWell didn’t Italy try to push second-hand Typhoons on Romania already?
They still decided for second-hand F-16 which they would get “for free”, probably due to political reasons, but then the deal was put on hold due to the finance crisis.
So I think we’re seeing this already however politics and technical requirements still play a role. As long as Sweden still has some Gripen (they offered new Gripen to Romania for roughly the same cost as the “free” F-16) I think Sweden can compete in that market. It may be more difficult for Rafale but then again I don’t think Dassault is interested in the very low-end market.
There are also the operating costs. Those that are interested in the best possible deals may want to still go for “free” second-hand F-16 or Gripen since the operating costs will also be lower than the larger twin-engine Typhoon.
Politics and offsets however will also play an important role. Offer enough offsets and political benefits to Romania and they may forget about both F-16 and Gripen and go for the more expensive Typhoon.
LokeHonestly I don’t know what to think about Mr. Pepe anymore.
His flawed assumption that higher thrust engine would automatically mean more fuel consumption was nicely shot down by Rogerout. And now this RCS thingy. Many journalists do not always grasp the technical details of what they are writing, although I would expect Mr. Pepe to understand those given his long experience in the field.
I was also very surprised that he at one point referred to a maximum combat radius of 3000 km, and then later on explained that this was something he had found on a forum and it was probably due to a misunderstanding — he did not present it as such initially.
Add to that the insistance on learning all about Gripen from the Norwegian evaluation…
I am confused of all of this (By the Brazilian PEPE of confusion :))
LokeFor Rafale, it will be after the 6th.
Que?
Assembly in Brazil after the 6th, or introduction of Brazilian components after the 6th?
If it’s the first option, when will Brazilian components be introduced into the Rafale?
Loke2. Sweden, until now, made no offset including aeronautical products, as KC-390. Its bid includes a lot of vacuum cleaners, trucks, industrial robots, buses, products that Investors Group, SAAB owner, produces at Brazilian facilities;
This seems to contradict what you say below about assembly from the tenth aircraft and components from the 36th. I am sure there must be other things as well. In Norway the conclusion from industry was very clear; Saab won the offset competition by a clear margin.
Anyway it will be interesting to see how much of the offsets the French manage to deliver on, assuming the new president shares the convictions of the current.
3. SAAB would not build Gripen NG parts since the first airframe. The proposal is to assemble planes at Brazil after the 10th airframe. Brazilian components would be introduced from the 36th airframe.
EDIT:
OK I just got new info on this:
1. Gripen NG assembly line will be set up in Brazil
2. ALL the Brazilian Gripen NG will be assembled in Brazil (starting from the first)
3. Brazilian companies will participate in the development work
4. 80% of each fighter body will be made in Brazil (structure)
5. Brazilian workshare will be 40% on each Gripen plane
6. Brazil will do flight test program
I know which source to trust…
LokeThese are Brazilian Air Force’s conclusions. its on COPAC initial paper, and included a lot of Spectra work.
OK, so perhaps that’s why it seems that the RCS of Rafale is much lower. EW techniques can reduce detection distance quite effectively in some instances. Unless the SH also used something similar to Spectra this comparison could potentially be apples-to-oranges comparison.
If it’s the effect of Spectra we’re seeing here, would it then be correct to say that the RCS is lower? I would think not, but leave it to the experts to answer that…
LokeAs Loke said, you are a fellow journalist. We can exchange info privately.
Pepe
Pepe, perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. I was not referring to JackMS I was referring to Jackonicko, who used to post on this forum quite frequently in the past. I am not familiar with JackMS and I don’t know whether he is a journalist or not — he may be of course, I simply don’t know.
Sign In
